CC3  7% 


—  OF  — 

PROF.  R.  A.   YODER'S 


a\ 


nation  ii  North  Carolina 


JJ 


BY  A  COMMITTEE. 


ERRATA. 


The  kind  reader  is  requested  to   correct   the   following   typo- 
graphical errors,  which  mar  the  sense  of  what  should  be  expressed : 
Page  5,  line  18  from  bottom,  substitute    "this   declaration"   for 
"the  assertion." 
top,  change  "prepared"  to  "proposed." 
"    insert  the  words  "of  Dort"  after  "The 

Synod." 
"•   read  "make"  for  "made." 
bottom,    read     "English    Conference"   for 

"Augsburg  Confession." 
top:  after  this  line  insert  the  following  head- 
ing of  a  new  chapter:  Does  the  Tennes- 
see Synod  teach  the  doctrine  of  election 
in  view  of  faith? 


21, 
29, 

40, 

40, 

39, 


11 
13 

7 
7 

9 


w 


—  OF  — 

PROF.  R.  A.   YODER'S 


an;  j 


i  i 


Ul 


i 


)) 


BY  A  COMMITTEE. 


PREFACE. 

It  is  with  sincere  regret  that  the  authors  of  this  pamphlet  ask  an 
impartial  public  for  a  brief  hearing  of  their  side  of  a  case,  on  which 
the  pnblic  so  far  has  heard  one  side.  The  matters  to  be  discussed  are, 
in  part  at  least,  of  such  a  character  that  a  charitably-disposed  mind 
should  wish  to  have  them  discussed  in  private,  brother  facing  broth- 
er. However,  since  public  attention  has  been  invited  to  them,  the 
authors  of  the  present  pamphlet  cannot  justly  be  criticised  for  issuing 
this  defense,  as  their  silence  might,  in  parts  where  they  are  not 
known,  be  interpreted  as  an  admission  of  their  guilt. 

David,  in  his  complaint  against  Does,  says  :  "I  am  for  peace: 
but  when  I  speak,  they  are  for  war."  (Ps.  120:7.)  The  authors  of 
this  pamphlet  have,  on  more  than  one  occasion,  had  a  similar  expe- 
rience with  their  present  opponents.  If,  therefore,  this  pamphlet 
should  accomplish  what  all  their  previous  efforts  have  not  accom- 
plished in  their  opponents — namely,  of  convincing  them  of  the  just 
right  and  honest  intentions  of  Missouri  in  North  Carolina,  the  au- 
thors would  consider  that  the  best  reward  of  all  their  past  and  pres- 
ent toils  in  behalf  of  that  peace  and  unity  of  the  Church  which  is 
commanded.— Eph.  4:3-6.  W.  H.  T.  Dau, 

GrEO.    A.    ROMOSER, 

J.  M.  Smith, 

L.    BUCHHEIMER, 

C.  L.  Coon, 

C.  H.  Bernheim. 


Review  of  Prof,  Voder's  "Situation  In  North  Carolina.1 


Lately  the  public  has  been  made  acquainted  with  the 
"Situation  in  North  Carolina,"  a  pamphlet  by  Prof.  R.  A. 
Yoder,  of  Hickory. 

Qf  course,  Prof.  Yoder  gives  his  version  of  the  situa- 
tion. He  claims  that  there  are  disturbances  and  divisions 
in  churches  of  the  Tennessee  Synod  on  account  of  the  pres- 
ence of  "Missouri"  in  Catawba  county.  The  disturbing  cen- 
tre seems  to  be  Conover  and  Concordia  College.  Prof. 
Yoder  claims  that  he  writes  his  pamphlet  because  of  these 
divisions,  hoping  thereby  to  allay  strife  and  discord,  which 
may  be  commendable  even  in  one  who  has  made  a  good 
deal  of  the  disturbance  of  which  he  now  complains.  But 
Pi  of  Yoder  should  write  as  a  true  student  of  history  and 
facts,  and  not  as  the  advocate  of  a  cause,  which  he  is  labor- 
ing to  uphold.  He  speaks  of  the  school  question  first, .  and 
that,  no  doubt,  is  the  proper  way  to  treat  the  subject,  be- 
cause it  is  highly  probable  that  if  there  had  been  no  school 
trouble  there  would  have  been  no  seeming  necessity  on  his 
part  to  put  himsrtf  in  print. 

It  is  not  our  purpose  to  write  a  history  of  Concordia 
College,  but  only  to  reply  to  some  of  the  misstatements  of 
facts  contained  In  the  pamphlet  referred  to  above. 

A  EEVISED   VERSION  OF  THE   SCHOOL   QUESTION   IN   THE 
TENNESSEE   SYNOD. 

Among  other  things,  Prof.  Yoder  says  :  *  * 
"And  the  school  was  finally  located  at  Conover,  against 
the  wishes  of  a  majority  of  the  people."  And  again,  ''In 
this  arbitrary  proceeding  a  great  majority  of  -our  people 
„.  never  acquiesced.  Some  of  our  people  did  lay  aside  their 
preferences  in  the  matter  of  location,  for  the  sake  of  the 
peace  of  the  church,  and  aided  in  the  erection  of  buildings 
at  Conover,  although  never  satisfied  with  the  location." 
f^  Prof.  Yoder  asserts  that  at  several  meetings  of  the  Lu- 


*^K 


therans  of  this  section,  it  was  decided  to  locate  the  school 
at  Hickoiy.  And  why  it  was  not  done,  Prof.  Yoder,  in 
brief,  says  that  we  need  only  remember  that  Rey.  J.  M. 
Smith  was  the  only  Lutheran  pastor  in  Catawba  county  in 
1875,  that  he  had  sons  to  educate,  and  that  he  lived  in  one 
mile  of  Conover.  Prof.  Yoder  never  told  the  public  that  Con- 
cordia College  was  not  permanently  located  at  Conover  in 
1875.  Vrof.  Yoder  ought  to  have  known  that  this  was  done 
inlH77,  and  after  Dr.  P.  C.  Henkel  had  returned  to  Cono- 
ver. But  accepting  Prof.  Yoder's  version,  we  are  forced  to 
conclude  that  the  people  of  Catawba  Co  in  1875  were  not 
able  to  look  after  their  best  interest — that  they  were  duped 
wad.  humbugged  by  Rev.  J.M.Smith  and  kept  still  about  it,  all 
for  the  sake  of  peace.  Strange,  indeed,  that  only  a  few 
years  ago  these  people  of  Catawba  county  loved  pease  so 
well,  and  now  there  is  such  a  war  that  even  the  peace-lov- 
ing Prof.  Yoder  almost  calls  for  an  armstice  in  order  that 
he  may  advise  the  combatants  under  which  banner  to  light. 
But  stranger  than  all  this  is  the  fact  that  Prof.  Yoder  him- 
self was  a  teacher  at  Conover  almost  uninterruptedly  from 
January  22,  1878,  to  May,  1891.  and  that,  too,  along  with  Dr. 
P.  C  Henkel  and  never  found  out  till  1891  that  he  was 
being  worked  in  the  unholy  cause  !  And  worse  still  and 
stranger  still  does  it  look  for  Prof.  Yoder's  siucerity-and 
the  correctness  of  his  present  statements  when  it  is  remem- 
bered that  the  Professor  worked  shoulder  to  shoulder  all 
this  while  with  that  influential  disregarder  of  majorities, 
Rev.  J.  M.  Smith  !  Prof.  Yoder  has  left  no  record  that  he 
ever,  prior  to  this  time,  admonished  Rev.  Smith  for  his 
<:high-handed"  methods  in  locating  the  school  at  Conover. 
If  what  Prof.  Yoder  says  is  true,  we  cannot  refrain  from 
picturing  to  him  the  bad  company  he  was  in  while  he  was 
here  at  Conover  laboring  to  establish  what  he  openly  pro- 
claimed was  a  Christian  school,  while  .at  the  same  time  he 
must  have  known  that  it  was  conceived  and  fouaded  in  self- 
ish motives  and  procured  at  Conover  by  "unchristian  con- 
duct." Or  was,  perhaps,  even  Prof.  Yoder  once  a  silent 
partner  in  the  sins  which  he  now  so  boldly  lays  to  the 
charge  of  Rev.  J.  M.  Smith  ? 

Prof.  Yoder  seems  to  be  over- careful  to  give  his  author- 
ity for  his  statements  in  regard  to  the  school  question. 
Does  the  author  of  this  pamphlet  wish  .to  leave  the  impres- 
sion that  he  never  knew  the  history  of  Concordia  College, 


though  he  was  one  of  its  fiet  teachers,  and  was  connected 
with  it  for  over  ten  'years  of  its  earliest  history  ? 

But  let  us  see  how  it  came  about  that  the  school  was 
built  at  Conover,  and  let  us  see,  too,  who  put  it  there. 

The  agitation  in  favor  of  a  Lutheran  school  in  Cataw- 
ba county  grew  out  of  a  debate,  was  first  agitated  after  a 
debate  which  Rev.  J.  M.  Smith  had  with  Rev.  Daniel  May, 
a  Methodist,  on  the  7th  and  8th  days  of  August,  1874,  and  NOT 
after  the  Henkel-May  debate,  which  was  in  April,  1875,  nor 
the  Schmidt-May  debate,  which  was  in  July,  1875.  The 
agitation  arose  in  this  way: 

The  Reformed  people  of  this  section  took  sides  with 
May  in  the  Smith  May  debate  in  1874.  The  Reformed 
school,  Catawba  College,  at  Newton,  (where  Prof.  W.  P. 
Cline  was  once  a  teacher,  while  Prof.  Yoder  was  at  Conover) 
was  up  to  that  tims  patronized  by  the  Lutherans  of  this  part 
of  the  State.  The  fact  that  the  Reformed  people  took  sides 
with  May,  a  Methodist,  opened  the  eyes  of  some  people 
around  Conover  as  to  their  duty,  and  they  went  to  Rev. 
Smith  and  urged  the  founding  of  a  Lutheran  school  at  or 
near  Conover.  Andrew  Holler,  of  Conover,  was  one  of  the 
first  men  who  proposed  this  matter  to  Rev.  Smith.  Then 
Dr.  Henkel  came  back  here  on  a  visit  in  1875;  he  was  urged 
to  remain.  He  refused  to  return  to  North  Carolina  unless, 
he  said,  he  could  be  instrumental  in  building  up  a  Lutheran 
school  in  this  section.  Of  course,  the  assertion  on  the  part 
of  Dr.  Henkel  increased  the  school  sentiment.  He  went 
back  to  Missouri.  Soon  afterwards  a  meeting  of  delegates 
from  the  various  congregations  of  this  section  was  called  at 
the  instance  of  some  persons  favorable  to  a  school  at  Cono- 
ver. The  delegates  met  at  Newton.  At  this  meeting  some 
favored  Hickory  as  the  school  site,  others  Newton,  and  still 
others  Conover.  A  committee  was  appointed  to  examine 
the  merits  of  each  place  and  report.  This  committee  re- 
ported at  another  meeting  held  at  Newton.  The  committee 
report  was  favorable  to  Hickory,  and  the  delegates  decided 
the  school  should  be  built  there.  But  resolutions  did  not 
build  schools  in  1875,  nor  do  they  do  so  now.  Hickory  was 
asked  to  see  how  much  money  could  be  raised  for  the 
school  buildings,  and  about  $1,200  was  subscribed.  But 
the  buildings  were  not  begun.  Other  meetings  were  held, 
locating  the*  school  first  at  Conover.  then  at  Hickory,  and 
soon.     It  would  be  of  no    benefit    to    trace    the    ups    and 


downs  of  the  college  through  all  these  meetings.  The  school 
question  was  almost  dead,  when  in  the  spring  of  1877,  Dr. 
Henkel  returned  to  North  Carolina.  Another  meeting  was 
then  called  at  Newton.  The  claims  of  each —Hickory,  Cou- 
over  and  Newton— were  again  presented.  Finally  it  was 
agreed  to  leave  the  location  to  the  place  raising  the  largest 
subscription  for  the  school  b  lildings,  a  seemiugly  fair  way 
to  settle  the  question.  Another  meeting  was  called  at  St. 
Paul's  some  time  afterward.  The  principal  business  was 
presented  by  Dr.  Henkel,  he  reading  a  paper 
forth  the  character  of  the  school  he  and  others  wanted,  viz., 
a  distinctively  Lutheran  school,  where  the  Bible  and  Lu- 
ther's Catechism  should  be  taught  daily.  His  paper  was 
discussed.  The  kind  of  school  Dr.  Henkel  wanted  was  op- 
posed by  Marcus  Yoder,  of  Hickory,  and  others, 
The  next  meeting  was  held  at  St  John's  Church 
on  August  18,  1877,  and  the  school  located  at  Conover,  and 
steps  were  taken  to  erect  the  necessary  buildings  on  the 
present  site  of  Concordia  College.  Conover  had  raised  a 
subscription  of  near  $2,500  for  the  school  buildings,  Hicko- 
ry about  $1,200,  and  Newton  about  $800. 

At  this  meeting  at  St.  John's,  according  to  record,  were 
present  Revs.  P.  C.  Henkel,  H-  Goodman,  M.  L.  Little  and 
J.M.Smith;  also  Messrs.  D.W.Moose,  A.  M.  Huit,  D.D.  Seitz, 
Andrew  Holler  and  others.  At  this  meeting  Dr.  Henkel  was 
chairman,  J.  M.  Smith,  secretary.  Dr  Henkel  was  here 
elected  president  of  the  Board  of  Trustees  of  the  school,  and 
J.  M.    Smith,  secretary  of  said  Board. 

Here  we  have  the  official  record  showing  that  the  site 
was  chosen  at  this  meeting,  and  also  that  at  that  time  no 
buildings  were  yet  erected.  The  reader  will  note  that  Dr. 
Henkel  was  somewhat  more  prominent  in  all  these  "high- 
handed, arbitrary"  proceedings  than  Rev.  Smith,  as  the 
records  show.  Dr.  Henkel  was  the  leading  spirit  at  the 
meeting  in  Newton,  at  St.  Paul's  and  at  St.  John's.  Now, 
are  Prof.  Yoder  and  the  Hickory  men  ready  to  repudiate 
Dr.  Henkel  as  to  this  matter  of  college  building  ?  Are  they 
ready  to  charge  him  with  what  they  charge  Rev.  Smith  V 
If  Rev.  Smith  was  a  sinner  in  this  matter,  Dr.  Henkel  was 
also.  But  7  nowadays  we  are  furnished  the  spectacle  of 
certain  Hickory  pastors  going  about  the  country  telling  the 
people  they  are  just  the  Lutherans  Dr.  P.  C.  Henkel  was  ! 
Henkels  is  the  name  these  men  now  take  on  their    lips    to 


try  to  prove  the  Ohio  doctrines  of  election  and  conversion, 
when  they  know  full  well  that  Dr.  Henkel  at  the  time  of  his 
death  was  corresponding-  wich  a  view  to  getting-  a  Missou- 
kian  to  come  to  North  Carolina  to  take  charge  of  work 
here  !  And  now  the  public  is  treated  to  a  "Situation  in 
North  Carolina,"  dealing  with  the  school  question,  by  a 
pretending  friend  of  the  late  venerable  Doctor  with  no  men- 
tion of  the,  real  founder  of  the  school  under  consideration  ! 
What  does  the  candid  reader  think  of  such  history  f 

Again  Prof.  Yoder  says  :  "In  1889  the  opposition  to 
the  school  at  Conover  had  to  some  extent  been  allayed 
because,  in  the  meantime,  Synod  had  taken  it  under  its 
care." 

Here  we  have  the  remarkable  declaration  that  the  great 
majority  of  the  people  of  this  county  will  chime  in  and 
help  a  chool  secured  in  a  "high-handed  and  arbitrary" 
manner  and  fathered  by  a  man  guilty  of  "unchristian  con- 
duct," if  only  the  Tennessee  Synod  will  surround  such  a 
school  with  its  "fostering  wings."  The  year  188i  must  be  a 
memorable  one  in  the  history  of  the  author  of  this  pam- 
phlet. Ii  we  mistake  not,  that  is  the  same  year  Prof.  "Soder 
went  about  telling  people  to  give  their  money  to  the  school 
at  Conover,  of  which  he  was  president.  Prof.  Yoder  was 
along  with  Bey.  Cline  on  canvassing  tours  for  the  college 
that  year.  Prof.  Cline  in  that  same  year  told  the  people 
that  he  too  had  once  opposed  Concordia  College,  but  that 
he  was  wrong  about  it — that  Conover  was  the  place  for  the 
school,  etc.  Profs.  Yoder  and  Cline  do  not  come  out  now 
like  men  and  say  we  were  mistaken  in  our  support  of  Cono- 
ver school,  say  we  were  mistaken  in  1889,  say  our  whole 
past  record  in  regard  to  Concordia  College  was  a  mistake, 
but  they  try  to  blacken  and  traduce  the  good  names  of 
those  who  have  been,  as  they  ought  to  say,  too  ignorant  to 
see  their  mistake,  as  yet,  in  remairing  at  Conover.  Calling 
other  people  bad  names  will  cover  up  no  sins  those  who 
attempt  this  method  of  defense  may  be  guilty  of. 

And  Dr.  Fqx  is  resurrected  to  testify  for  the  defense ! 

Prof.  Yoder  forgets  that  he  used  to  say  hard  things 
about  Dr  Fox  for  being  on  the  opposite  side  of  Prof  Yoder 
as  to  this  school  question.  It  does  make  a  great  difference 
as  to  the  size  of  some  things,  if  the  observer  changes  places 
during  his  observation  !  ! 

Prof.  Yoder  pays  his  respects  to  Conover    and    to    the 


called  session  of  the  Tennessee  Synod  at  St.  James,  Decem- 
ber 26-27,  1890,  by  calling  Revs.  Smith  and  Bernheim  ''un- 
christian" and  by  saying  the  Conover  party  forced  a  vote 
under  "gag-law  "  The  Hickory  men  claim  that  the  propo- 
sition of  Mr.  J.  G.  Hall  was  not  voted  on,  that  Synod  was 
called  together  for  that  purpose — to  cortsider  Hall's  propo- 
sition. Perhaps  it  would  be  well  to  see  just  what  the  Hick- 
ory men  wanted  Synod  to  vote  on.     Here  it  is  : 

Whereas,  Mr.  J.  Gr.  Hall,  of  the  city  of  Hickory,  trustee  of 
certain  school  and  other  property,  lying  in  and  near  said  city,  has 
offered  the  same  to  our  Synod,  and 

Whereas,  An  opportunity  is  thus  afforded  us  to  increase  our 
school  property  and  advantages,  and 

Whereas,  We  believe  that  the  time  has  now  come  for  us  to  be- 
gin to  meet  our  resbonsibility  to  the  orphans  of  our  Synod,  there- 
fore 

Resolved,  That  we  accept  the  offer  made  by  Mr.  Hall,  and  use 
said  property  for  our  college,,  with  its  theological  department. 

2.  That  we  accept  the  offer  made  us,  by  the  board,  of  the  prop- 
erty in  the  town  of  Conover,  provide  for  the  improvement  of  and  ad- 
dition to  it,  and  the  establishment  of  a  home  for  the  needy  orphans  of 
the  Lutheran  Church,  and  the  perpetuation  of  a  good  academical 
school,  upon  the  basis  adopted  by  the  original  founders  of  said  school. 

3.  That,  in  view  of  his  untiring  zeal  and  almost  unequaled  sue 
cess  in  the  propagation  and  defense  of  the  pure  doctrines  of  the 
Church,  and  especially  that  of  infant  church  membership,  thus  mak- 
ing him  pre-eminently  the  spiritual  patron  of  the  children,  our  insti- 
tution at  Conover  be  known  as  the  P.  C.  HENKEL  ORPHAN 
HOME  AND  ACADEMY,  a  living  and  useful  memorial-  to  the 
■worth  of  him  Avhose  name  it  shall  thus  bear,  and  that  our  college  re- 
tain its  present  name. 

4.  That  both  these  institutions  be  controlled  by  the  same  board 
of  directors,  whose  members  shall  all  be  members  of  our  Synod,  with 
the  specified  life-time  exception  of  Mr.  J.  Ox.  Hall. 

5.  That,  with  devout  gratitude,  we  recognize,  in  our  opportuni 
ties,  the  gracious  provision  of  our  heavenly  Father,  enabling  us  to 
begin  to  meet  our  responsibilities  to  the  orphans,  as  well  as  to  the 
youth  of  our  dear  old  Synod. 

Was  Synod  called  together  to  establish  academies,  or- 
phan asylums  and  the  like  ?  Had  Synod  voted  on  the 
above,  would  it  have  voted  on  what  Synod  was  called  to- 
gether for,  according  to  the  Hickory  men  ?  Of  course  it 
would,  and  some  other  things,  too!  But  when  a  substitute 
was  voted  on  that  destroys  the  validity  of  the  action  of  a 
parliamentary  body !  Wonderful  !  Now,  let  the  reader 
remember  that  the  Conover  men  were  willing  to  continue  the 
debate  on  Monday,  provided  the  names  of  some  Conover 
men  who  could  not  be  present  at   Synod    during    the    next 


week  sliould  ou  Saturday  evening  be  recorded  as  voting-  in 
favor  of  Conover  and  against  Hall's  proposition.  This  the 
Hickory  men  refused  to  do.  But  yet  the  Conover  men  did 
not  call  for  the  substitute,  locating  the  school  permanently 
at  Conover,  until  after  the  Rev.  J.  R.  Peterson,  the  mover 
of  the  substitute,  asked  Prof.  Yoder,  the  president  of  the 
school,  whether  the  school  could  not  be  made  a  success  at 
Conover.  Prof.  Yoder  answered  him  that  it  could  be  made  a 
success  at  Conover,  Then,  and  only  then,  was  the  substitute 
offered  and  adopted  by  a  majority  of  the  Synod,  counting 
those  not  voting  as  against  the  substitute.  The  majority  of 
the  Synod  was  against  any  further  consideration  of  the  Hall 
proposition,  and  disposed  of  the  matter  by  voting  on  a  sub- 
stitute, which  carried.  Of  course,  the  Hickory  men  will 
have  to  try  to  destroy  the  legality  of  that  vote  or  they  will 
have  a  bad  case  against  themselves  in  not  obeying  the  wishes 
of  Synod.  And  if  Prof. Yoder  and  his  friends  went  to  Hicko- 
ry with  no  idea  of  establishing  a  school  iu  opposition  to 
the  one  at  Conover,  as  he  says,  then  why  did  he  not  insist 
on  the  students  here  in  1891  keturning  here  ?  But  no,  it 
had  to  be  shown  apparently  to  the  world  that  Conover  was 
not  the  place  for  the  school  or  his  actions  would  be  ques- 
tioned. The  Hickory  men  let  the  school  at  Conover  die 
two  or  three  weeks  before  the  annual  closing,  and  all  be- 
cause, if  we  are  to  believe  them,  they  wanted  to  "increase 
the  school  facilities  of  the  Tennessee  Synod !" 

Prof.  Yoder  censures  Rev.  C.  H.  Bernheim  for,  as  he 
says,  trying  to  make  a  deal  with  Ohio  before  the  Synod  at 
St.  James.  It  might  be  a  pertinent  question  to  ask  why 
Beruheim  did  not  do  the  giving  away  act,  which  Prof.  Yo- 
der seems  to  think  he  was  so  anxious  to  do.  One  reason 
was  that  Rev.  Bernheim  was  not  the  whole  Board  of  Trus- 
trees  at  any  time  "within  the  memory  of  men  still  living." 
And  if  those  men,  Smith  and  Bernheim,  were  so  omnipotent 
in  locating  schools,  and  it  is  shown  that  they  failed  to  de- 
liver the  goods  to  Ohio  on  this  occasion,  might  not  the  rea- 
son be  that  it  was  because  certain  Lutherans  about  Conover 
did  not  agree  with  Ohio  in  doctrine,  nor  approve  of  the  way 
Ohio  got  into  North  Carolina  ?  Let  it  be  said  that  so  far 
as  Rey.  Bernheim's  letter  goes,  he  was  not  then  writing  for 
anybody  but  himself.  But  here  is  what  Rev.  Bernheim 
himself  has  to  say  ajxmt  the  matter  : 


"Yoder's  charge  against  me  on  page  12,  quoting  a  part  of  my  let- 
ter, is  of  no  weight  whatever,  because  I  then  did  not  fully  under- 
stand the  difference  between  Missouri  and  Ohio.  Neither  did  1  at 
any  time  state  that  I  never  changed  my  views." 

Then,  again,  Prof.  Yoder  tells  how  Revs.  Smith  and 
Bernheim  opposed  a  proposition  to  leave  the  matter  of  lo- 
cation of  Concordia  College  to  a  direct  vote  of  the  congre- 
gations of  the  Tennessee  Synod,  though  they  had,  on  Jan- 
uary 13,  1891,  agreed  to  such  a  scheme.  But  the  public 
should  remember  that  Revs.  Smith  and  Bernheim  acted 
thus  because  Synod  a  few  weeks  before  had  said  the  school 
should  be  at  Conover,  and  to  submit  to  a  scheme  of  this 
kind  would  have  been  equivalent  to  opening  anew  the  war- 
fare— of  disregarding  the  express  action  of  Synod,  a  thing, 
no  doubt,  Prof.  Yoder  and  others  would  have  gladly  wit- 
nessed. Prof.  Yoder.  tells  the  public  how  the  Board  of 
Trustees  of  Concordia  College  and  two  Missoueians  called 
a  pastor  for  Concordia  congregation.  Prof.  Yoder  knows 
that  it  was  customary  for  one  of  the  teachers  in  the  college 
here  to  be  pastor  of  Concordia  congregation  in  order  to  en- 
able him  to  receive  a  better  salary.  That  recommendation  did 
not  amount  to  a  call  at  all.  Prof.  Dau  was  called  unani- 
mously by  Concordia  congregation.  No  electioneering 
was  engaged  in  by  anyone.  Tho  congregation  wanted  to 
call  a  Missourian  and  did  so,  because  it  had  a  perfect  right 
to  do  so.  And  now  we  are  told  by  some  people  that  it  was 
not  divine,  because  a  professorship  was  coupled  with  it. 
Did  not  Prof  Yoder  tell  members  of  Concordia  congrega- 
tion to  call  Rev.  J.  G.  Schaidt  or  they  could  "let  the  school 
go  down  ?"  Prof.  Yoder  was  in  the  Board  meeting  that 
called  Schaidt,  and  the  record  shows  it,  and  also  shows 
that  "Prof.  Yoder  was  to  notify  Rev.  Schaidt  of  his  call  af- 
ter the  congregation  acted."  Prof  Yoder  ought  to  be  the 
last  man  to  say  anything  about  Prof.  Dau's  call. 

Now,  let  us  see  how  the  English"  Synod  of  Missouri 

OBTAINED  CONTROL  OF  CONCORDIA  COLLEGE. 

Prof.  Yoder  says  it  was  thus  :  '  The  Missourians  tak- 
ing advantage  of  this  disaffection  in  the  Tennessee  Synod, 
and  aided  by  members  of  the  Board  of  Trustees,  who 
played  the  part  of  traitors  to  the  Tennessee  Synod,  secured 
control  of  the  school." — [See  page  19.] 

Here  Missouri  is  accused  of  taking  advantage  of  a  dis- 

10 


affection  and  of  slyly  creeping-  in  at  Conover. 

The  history  is  this  :  In  the  autumn  of  1891  the  Board 
of  Trustees  of  Concordia  College  applied  to  Rev.  F.  Kuegele 
as  president  of  the  Eng.  Synod  of  Missouri  to  aid  them  in 
securing  teachers  for  the  college.  The  proposition  was 
made  that  Missouri  supply  a  president  for  the  institution, 
and  that  by  holding  Free  Conferences  an  attempt  be  made 
to  bring  about  an  agreement  between  Tennessee  and  Mis- 
souri. No  secret  was  made  of  this.  President  Kuegele 
wrote  to  New  Market,  the  headquarters  of  the  Tennessee 
Synod,  about  the  matter.  In  December,  1891,  Revs.  Kue- 
gele and  Dallman  came  to  Conover.  Here  it  was  agreed  to 
grant  the  request  of  the  Board  and  provide  the  school  with 
a  man  to  act  as  its  president  and  as  a  professor  in  the  same. 
This  put  the  school  as  such  under  control  of  Missouri.  As 
to  the  school  property,  it  was  mutually  agreed  that  it  should 
remain  in  the  same  hands  as  before.  But  before  ratifying 
this  agreement  Revs.  Kuegele  and  Dallman  went  to  Hicko- 
ry to  inquire  of  the  professors  at  Highland  (now  Lenoir) 
College,  whether  they  could  show  Missouri  valid  reasons 
why  Missouri  should  not  supply  teachers  for  Concordia 
College.  The  Hickory  men  showed  Missouri  no  such  rea- 
sons, neither  did  they  warn  Missouri  away  from  Conover. 
Then,  the  agreement  was  finally  ratified.  From  these  his- 
toric facts  it  is  clear  : 

1.  Missouri  did  not  creep  in  at  Conover. 

2.  Before  granting  a  teacher  .for  Concordia  College, 
Missouri  made  inquiry  of  the  opponents  and  was  not  warned 
away  from  Conover,  neither  at  Hickory  nor  at  New  Mar- 
ket. At  Hickory  one  man  expressed  fears  that  the  coming 
of  Missouri  wouid  lead  to  complications,  and  that  is  all. 

3.  The  members  of  the  Board  of  Trustees  are  wrong- 
fully accused  of  being  traitors  to  the  Tennessee  Synod. 
From  the"  above  named  agreement  it  is  plain  that  there  was 
no  intention  on  the  part  of  the  Board  nor  on  the  part  of 
Missouri  to  deprive  the  Tennessee  Synod  of  property  or 
rights.  If  such  had  been  the  intention,  then  the  president 
of  Concordia  College  would  not,  ten  months  later,  have 
sent  a  report  of  the  sshool  to  the  convention  of  the  Tennes- 
see Synod  at  Hickory,  by~wbich  act  the  fostering  care  of  that 
Synod  was  acknowledged.  Here  it  was  that  the  Tennessee 
Synod  itself  withdrew  its  oversight  of  Concordia  College 
and  so  cut  loose  from  Conover.     It  is  an  error    to   say,    as 

11 


Prof  Yoder  does,  that  the  Board  of  Trustees  took  the  col- 
lege away  from  the  Tennessee  Synod.  The  opposite  is  true 
— the  Synod  discarded  the  college.  It  was  only  after  such 
action  on  the  part  of  the  Tennessee  Synod  that  the  Board 
took  steps  looking  to  a  transfer  of  the  property  to  Missouri. 
The  charge  of  treason  certainly  comes  with  ill  grace  f  i  om 
the  very  men  who  deserted  the  work  at  Conover.  But 
Prof.  Yoder  claims  that  the  Minutes  of  Eng.  Mo.  Synod 
contain  a  wrong  statement  when  they  say  :  "The  Tennes- 
see Synod  withdrew  its  fostering  care  from  the  institution, 
and  the  Board  of  Trustees  applied  to  the  Mission  Board  of 
the  German  Mo.  Synod."  There  is  in  these  statements  a 
wrong  order,  which  by  oversight  remained  in  the  minutes 
referred  to  above.  This  every  one  acquainted  with  the  run 
of  affairs  can  easily  see.  The  last  statement  should  be  said 
first,  and  the  truth  will  be  told.  Prof.  Yoder's  attitude  at 
present  reminds  us  of  the  man  who  laid  down  the  pasture 
fence  and  went  off  and  neglected  to  watch  and  to  keep  the 
cattle  in  the  pasture,  and  who,  after  the  cattle  had  escaped, 
proceeded  to  say  bad  things  about  cattle  that  would  not 
stay  in  the  pasture  where  they  belonged.  No  doubt,  there 
are  some  men-in  Catawba  county  who  are  sorry  now  after 
they  see  all  the  disturbance  they  have  made.  Prof.  Yoder 
by  writing:  a  pamphlet  which  attacks  everybody  whom  he 
sees  in  sight,  no  doubt,  wishes,  and  thinks  thereby  to  pay 
the  debt  he  owes  his  Synod  in  not  preserving  its  peace. 

If  in  this  whole  transaction  of  makiog  an  agreement 
with  the  Board  of  Trustees  at  Conover  Missouri  was  at 
fault,  her  fault  was  this —that  she  placed  too  much  confi- 
dence in  the  professions  of  love  for  Missouri  so  frequent 
with  pastors  of  the  Tennessee  Synod,  and  therefore  believed 
that  an  agreement  between  the  Synods  could'  be  brought 
about.    In  this  we  were  deceived  and  we  are    sorry    for  it. 

MISSOURI   PASTORS   AND   TENNESSEE   SYNOD    CONGREGATIONS. 

The  true  believers  in  a  Christian  congregation,  and 
through  them  the  whole  congregation  have  the  right,  under 
certain  restrictions  laid  down  in  God's  Word,  to  call  a  min- 
ister, and  it  is  the  "Lutheran  idea,"  as  well  as  Biblical  doc- 
trine, that  ''the  pastor  becomes  such  by  virtue  of  his  call 
from  a  congregation."  The  inductions  in  God's  Word, 
which  the  congregation  must  observe  in  extending  a  call, 
have  reference  solely  and  alone  to  the  qualifications  of    the 

V2 


person  called  and  to  his  soundness  in  the  faith.  Within 
these  limits  the  congregation  is  free  to  act  and  when  such 
a  call  is  directed  to  a  candidate)  or  pastor,  it  is  his  duty  to 
accept,  unless  he  can  show  by  incontestable  evidence  that 
God  would  have  him  stay  where  he  is,  and  that  the  congre- 
gation has  simply  misdirected  the  call,  or  sent  it  to  the 
wrong  person.  If  that  cannot  be  done,  he  dare  not,  as  has 
been  said,  turn  a  deaf  ear  to  the  cry  for  help.  That  the 
pastors  of  Missouri  will  take  charge  of  all  vacant  congre- 
gations to  which  they  have  a  regular,  valid  call,  and  thus 
heed  the  cry  for  help,  cannot  surely  be  taken  amiss.  Such 
a  call  must  of  course  leave  the  pastor  free  to  preach  and 
act  according  to  his  conscience  bound  in  God's  Word.  If 
in  consequence,  through  the  preaching  of  the  Gospel  pure 
and  simple,  the  congregation  learns  to  see  the  advisability 
of  uniting  with  those  who  are  then  one  with  her  in  faith, 
and  of  severing  her  connection  with  those  with  whom  she 
cannot  agree  in  matters  of  doctrine,  that  is  to  be  looked  up- 
on only  as  one  of  the  results  of  a  faithful  pastor's  ministra- 
tions. Where  it  is  manifest  that  there  are  differences  which 
can  be  composed,  the  congregation  will  take  no  steps  to 
sever  her  connection  with  her  old  Synod.  Where  there  are 
such  differences,  the  separation  should  take  place  only  af- 
ter repeated  efforts  to  compose  them  have  been  unsuc- 
cessful. 

In  the  Missouri  Synod  it  has  never  been  a  practice  to 
hold  a  lien  upon  the  church  property  in  some  way  or  other, 
so  as  to  insure  the  adherence  of  the  congregation  to  the 
h\nod.  In  the  minutes  of  the  15th  General  Assembly,  in 
St.  Louis,  1872 — pages  60-61 — we  see  how  Missouri  con- 
demns "tyranizing  over  consciences:" — 

"We  have  never  taught  that  a  congregation  only  then  had  all 
the  privileges  of  a  true  church  when  she  belonged  to  a  Synod.  We 
have  always  advised  our  young  preachers  not  to  take  their  congre- 
gations as  it  were  by  storm  (bestuermen)  so  that  they  join  the  Syn- 
od. *  *  We  have  always  advised  congregations  not  to  write 
in  their  constitution  :  Our  congregation  shall  always  belong  to  the 
Missouri  Synod.  We  have  always  said  that  we  do  not  desire  that, 
and  that  a  congregation  cannot  and  should  not  rely  on  any  Synod, 
not  even  the  Missouri  Synod.         *        *  When    a    congregation 

leaves  our  Synod  we  do  not  say  on  that  account :  She  is  now  no 
longer  Lutheran.  *  *  Congregations  are  to  remain  in  our 
Synod  only  for  this  reason,  because  they  themselves  see  :    It  is  prof- 

13 


itable  for  us  to  remain  therein.  We  are  there  connected  also  exter- 
nally with  many  brethren  in  the  faith.  Much  can  be  done  there  for 
the  kingdom  of  Grod,  that  coald  not  otherwise  be  done.  We  our- 
selves say  :  If  it  should  ever  happen  that  our  Synod  should  take  up 
false  doctrine  or  unionistic  practice,  then  cheerfully  sever  your  con- 
nection with  her." 

ST.    MARTIN'S   CONGREGATION,   IREDELL  CO.,   N.    C. 

In  a  letter  written  by  Prof.  Dau  to  the  then  president 
of  the  Tennessee  Synod,  Rev.  J.  Paul  Stirewalt,  to  inform 
him  of  the  call  to  St.  Martin's  congregation  of  Pastor  Ro- 
moser,  and  asking  him  to  do  something  towards  allaying 
threatened  trouble,  he  says  : 

"I  do  sincerely  deplore  that  I  cannot,  at  present,  conscientious- 
ly become  a  member  of  the  E.  L.  Tenn.  Synod.  It  is,  however,  my 
earnest  desire  to  unite  myself  with  your  Synod  as  soon  as  certain 
obstacles  are  removed.  For  it  matters  little  to  me  what  the  appel- 
lation of  the  Synod  is  to  which  I  belong,  so  long  as  it  is  a  truly  Lu- 
theran Synod  in  doctrine  and  practice.  *  The  fact  that  the  E.  L. 
Tenn.  Synod  is  at  present  connected  with  other  Lutheran  bodies 
whose  Lutheranism  I  have  grave  reasons  to  regard  as  questionable 
and  not  genuine,  causes  me  to  stand  aloof.  Could  representatives 
of  the  E.  L  Tenn.  Synod  and  tire  E.  L.  Synod  of  Missouri  meet  and 
jointly  discuss  the  doctrines  of  our  beloved  Church,  and  could  these 
discussions,  by  the  help  of  God,  be  so  blessed  as  to  result  in  a  pub- 
lic declaration  that  there  is  perfect  unanimity  in  doctrine  and  prac- 
tice between  the  two  Synods,  I  should  not  hesitate  any  longer  to 
apply  for  membership  in  the  E.  L.  Tenn.  Synod.  Rumors  are  being 
circulated  that  the  Missouri  pastors  are  trying  to  cause  a  schism  in 
the  E.  L.  Tenn.  Synod  and  capture  a  congregation  or  two.  I  dis- 
claim any  intentions  of  such  a  nature,  and  sincerely  regret  these  re- 
ports. I  have  entered  the  precincts  of  your  Synod  in  answer  to  a 
divine  call  and  with  no  other  mission  in  my  mind  than  to  preach 
the  blessed  G-ospel  and  build  our  Lutheran  Zion." 

Hence,  when  trouble  arose  in  St.  Martin's  congrega- 
tion, it  was  not  due  to  any  action  on  the  part  of  the  Mis- 
sourian,  Prof.  Dau,  who  was  then  already  in  Conover.  Two 
calls  regularly  made  out  by  the  committees  duly  appointed 
for  that  purpose,  from  St.  Martin's  and  Sharon  congrega- 
tions, had  already  been  sent  to  candidate,  Roinoser,  in  St. 
Louis.  Since  these  calls  were  very  brief,  Romoser,  without 
declining,  asked  for  a  fuller  and  more  comprehensive    call. 

14 


Since  baste  was  necessary  in  order  to  get  this  call  to  St. 
Louis  in  time,  a  more  comprehensive  call  was  written  and 
signed  by  one  of  the  members  of  the  committee,  Mr.  R.  F. 
Cline,  with  the  consent  of  another  member.  In  the  mean 
time,  due  to  outside  interference,  dissension  arose  in  the 
congregation,  which  caused  Prof.  Dau  to  hold  an  investi- 
gation. In  me  meeting  it  was  moved  and  seconded  that 
the  call  be  ratified,  to  correct  any  irregularity  that  might 
be  supposed  to  exis,t  in  this  matter.  "Now,  then  was  the 
time'fui  the  opposition  to  show  whether  the  pretended  ir- 
regularity was  their  only  and  real  objection;  for  if  that  had 
been  the  case,  they  might  have  cheerfully  voted  for  the  rat- 
ification. But  the  motion  having  been  made,  their  princi- 
pal speaker  at  once  entered  a  solemn  protest,  declaiming 
loudly  and  bitterly  against  Missouri  and  insinuating  all 
manner  of  vile  things."  At  last  the  final  vote  was  taken  on 
ratificntion,  and  stood  23  for  and  5  against.  President 
Stirewalt  called  the  attention  of  the  Tenn.  Synod,  assem- 
bled in  Hickory,  1892,  to  the  matter  (perhaps  upon  the 
strength  of  Prof.  Dau's  letter)  and  recommended  thac  the 
matter  be  iavestigated.  In  spite  of  the  efforts  of  a  member 
of  Synod,  who  claimed  to  have  a  letter  in  his  pocket  from 
the  secretary  of  St.  Martin's  (though  not  as  secretary,)  Syn 
od  did  "not  deem  synodical  action  necessary."  Still  the 
matter  was  kept  stirred  and  the  faction  in  the  congregation 
sent  a  petition  to  the  North  Carolina  Conference  of  the 
Tenn.  Synod,  urging  some  action.  Conference  appointed  a 
committee,  two  members  of  which,  Revs.  J.  R.  Peterson  and 
L.  L.  Lohr,  who,  having  informed  Pastor  Romoser,  met 
him  and  the  congregation  April  4,  1883.  The  result  was 
that  Pastor  Peterson  was  inclined  to  think  the  call  regular, 
while  Pastor  Lohr  thought  otherwise.  Thus  nothing  was 
accomplished  for  those  who  were  determined  upon  ''some 
action."  The  subject  was  still  agitated  and  Conference  ap- 
pointed another  committee.  This  committee  went  to  St. 
Martin's  without  ever  having  informed  the  pastor  or  even 
the  congregation,  and  "from  statements  made  by  all  par- 
ties" (?)  learned  this  call  was  ''irregular."  That  such  opin- 
ion would  have  great  weight  with  many  of  the  members  was 
o)nly  natural,  since  they  had  known  and  esteemed  these 
committeemen  for  many  years.  Therefore,  some  of  the 
members  who  had  voted  for  ratifying  the  call  yielded,  and 
it  was  resolved  by  a  vote  of  31  to  22  on  the  part  of  the   con- 

15 


gregation  that  the  call  was  irregular,  and  Pastor  Romoser 
was  obliged  to  withdraw.  The  division  still  existing  in  the 
congregation,  which  Prof.  Yoder  deplores  so  much,  may 
perhaps  appear  in  another  light  when  some  at  least  of  those 
members  who  are  not  yet  reconciled  are  heard  to  say  :  "It 
is  our  firm  conviction  that  this  congregation,  by  a  majority 
of  its  members,  did  wrong  in  breaking  the  call  extended 
to  Pastor  Romoser." 

SHARON   CONGREGATION,   IREDELL  CO.,  N.    C. 

As  regards  Sharon  congregation,  this  congregation  in 
its  unity  is  a  living  refutation  of  the  charges  of  irregularity 
made  against  the  call.  Not  only  was  a  congregational 
meeting  held  and  a  vote  taken  empowering  the  committee 
to  call,  but  the  congregation  also  appointed  a  committee  to 
be  present  at  the  meeting  of  the  investigating  committee  at 
St.  Martin's  in  April,  and  instructed  them  to  declare  that 
"Sharon  church  was  determined  to  hold  to  the  call  which 
she  had  extended  to  Prof.  Romoser. 

As  for  the  constitution  which  Romoser  is  charged  with 
having  set  aside,  the  facts  are  these  :  Let  it  be  remarked 
that  not  a  word  was  said  about  this  constitution  until  after 
Rev.  Romoser  was  in  North  Carolina.  Then  it  began  to 
be  noised  about  that  Sharon's  constitution  required  the 
pastor  to  belong  to  the  Tenn.  Synod.  The  elders,  with  the 
pastor,  resolved  to  investigate  the  matter,  and  Mr.  Cline 
called  upon  Rev.  Suttlemyre  for  what  was  claimed  to  be 
Sharon's  constitution.  A  paper  was  given  him,  but  when  it 
was  read  to  the  congregation  the  members  did  not  know 
whether  ih  was  their  constitution  or  not,  for  the  following 
reasons  :  The  paper  was  the  borrowed  constitution  of  an- 
other church,  and  throughout  there  was  found  the  name  of 
another  congregation,  instead  of  Sharon.  The  necessary 
corrections  had  not  been  made  in  this  paper,  and  the  mem- 
bers did  not  know  whetber  they  had  been  made  in  other 
places  or  not.  Furthermore,  not  a  single  member  had 
signed  the  paper,  as  it  itself  demanded.  In  view  of  these 
facts,  the  members  said  they  could  not  recognize  the  paper 
as  their  constitution.  And  in  order  to  show  their  senti- 
ments, the  congregation  on  August  26,  1894,  took  formal 
action  condemning  in  strong  terms  the  statements  made  in 
Prof.  Yoder's  book  with  reference  to  Sharon  church. 

16 


ST.  JOHN'S  GHUKCHj  CATAWBA  COUNTY,  N.  C. 

By  authority  of  St.  John's  E.  L.  Congregation  of  Catawba 
county,  N.  C,  we,  the  undersigned,  herewith  make  the  follow- 
ing 

Statement: 

On  September  2,  1894,  our  pastor  read  to  our  congregation 
that  portion  of  Prof.  Yoder's  pamphlet  which  relates  to  the 
calling  of  our  present  pastor.  After  some  discussion  it  was 
resolved  that  the  charges  contained  in  said  pamphlet  be  pub- 
licly answered,  and  that  the  council  of  our  church  be  ap- 
pointed to  formulate  this  answer  and  have  it  published.  In 
accordance  with  these  resolutions  we  offer  to  the  public  the 
following: 

On  May  20,  1893,  our  congregation  held  a  meeting  for  the 
purpose  of  electing  a  pastor  to  succeed  the  Rev.  C.  H.  Bern- 
heim, who  had  resigned  the  office  to  remove  to  Lexington,  N. 
C,  on  account  of  the  feeble  health  of  his  wife.  This  meeting 
had  been  duly  announced  before,  and  was  well  attended.  By 
a  rule  of  our  constitution  a  number  of  our  members  would 
have  been  prevented  from  voting.  A  motion  was,  therefore, 
made  and  carried  at  the  beginning  of  the  meeting,  that 
the  rules  of  the  congregation  be  temporarily  suspended. 
By  this  motion  the  side  which  now  complains  that  we  have 
acted  unfairly  in  the  calling  of  our  present  pastor,  was  great- 
ly benefitted;  for  had  not  this  motion  prevailed  a  number  of 
them  could  not  have  voted  at  all.  There  were  present  at  tlrs 
meeting  our  then  pastorfRev.  C.  H.  Bernheim,  and  Rev.  J. 
M.  Smith,  both  of  whom  are  .charged  in  the  pamphlet  of  Prof. 
Yoder  with  "electioneeringfor  a  Missourian."  The  facts  are 
these:  Rev.  C.  H.  Bernheim  dia  in  no  wise  betray  that  he 
sought  to  influence  us  in  the  choice  of  our  pastor,  and  Rev. 
Smith  was  present  principally  to  prevent  his  own  election,  as 
he  had  been  informed  that  he  would  be  chosen.  None  of 
those  who  have  voted  for  our  present  pastor  shall  concede  that 
they  were  in  any  wise  coerced  to  do  so;  they  voted  with  the 
utmost  freedom,  and  they  voted  with  an  eye  to  the  best  inter- 
ests of  the  congregation.  There  was  "electioneering,"  if  we 
may  borrow  Prof.  Yoder's  phrase,  but  that  was  on  the  other 
side.  Mr.  Silas  Wike  and  Miss  Sallie  Herman  (now  Mrs. 
Holler)  made  it  their  business  prior  to  the  meeting  to  per- 
sonally see   some  of  our  members  and  urge  them  to  vote  for 

17 


Prof.  Yoder.     There  were  placed  in   nomination  for  the  pas- 
torate of  our  congregation,  Prof.  Dau  and  Prof.  Yoder.     The, 
first  ballot  resulted  in  37  votes  for   the  former  and  16  for  the 
latter.     A  motion  was  then  offered   to  make  Prof.  Dau's  call 
unanimous,  which  was  dene,  only  6  voting  against  the  motion. 
It  soon    became   painfully   manifest   that  the  oppositionists 
were    determined    to   create   a   disturbance.     Soon  after  our 
congregation  learned  with  great  sadness  that  a  new  congrega- 
tion was  about  to  be   organized  out  of   those  who  would  not 
accept  the  services  of  our  present  pastor,  and  that  Prof.  Yoder 
was   serving   these   parties  at  Wike's  school  house.     Thus  it 
will  be  seen,  that  while  our  part  of  the  congregation  used  all 
efforts  to  prevent  a   rupture  in  the  congregation,  the  opposi- 
tionists in  every  possible  way  widened  the  breach  which  they 
had  made  in  the  beginning,   and   clearly  showed   that  they 
would  not  listen  to  God's  word,  when  brought  to  bear  on  thetr 
by   our   side.       The   climax   was   reached   when  the   oppo- 
sition  petitioned   the  Tennessee  Synod  for  advice  and  assis- 
tance.    None  of  our  members  have  ever  been  able  to  inspect 
the   paper  which  contained  the  petition;  all  that  we  know  of 
it  is  the  portion  quoted  in  the  minutes  of  the  Tennessee  Synod 
of  1893,  and  again  quoted  in  Prof.  Yoder's  pamphlet  on  page 
23.     The  minutes  of  the  Tennessee  Synod  make  this  petition 
emanate   ''from  St.  John's  E.  L.  Congregation;"  this  should 
read  ufrom  a  small  minority  of  the  congregation."     We  do  not 
mean  to  blame  our  Synod  for  this,  for  Synod  probably  looked 
at  the  37  signatures  of  this  petition,  and  imagined  that  these 
signatures  represented  about  the  eiftire  congregation.     In  this 
there  was  not  a  little  deception  practiced.     In  the  first  place 
we  wish  to  state  that  the  37  members  are  not  voting  members, 
we   cannot  even  say  that  they  are  communing  members ;'or 
members   in  good  standing,  because  we  have  never  seen  the 
paper.     None  of   the  gentlemen  whom  Prof.  Yoder  mentions 
as  his  informers  on  page  22,  cexcepting  Mr.  Silas  Wike,  were 
consistent    members   of   our   congregation.     Our  opponents 
ought  to  publish  the  paper  with  all  the  signatures.  The  reason 
why  we  know  that  those  37  members  are  not  all  voting  mem- 
bers is  this:     Mr.  L.  E.  Warren,  one  of   the  signers  of   that 
paper,  afterwards   in   a   meeting  of   our  congregation  stated 
that  he  had  signed  the  paper  not  knowing  and  understanding 
the  contents  thereof,  that  he  was   sorry  he  had  permitted  his 
name  to  be  affixed   to   this   paper   and  should  like  to  have  it 

18 


erased,  if  this  could  be  done.  At  his  house  2  more  signa- 
tures were  obtained,  that  of  his  wife  and  his  mother-in-law, 
Mrs.  Price.  The  latter  lady  related  the  following  at  Mr.  Noah 
Brady's  house:  The  petition  Was  brought  to  her  house  and 
the  bearer  of  the  same  read  from  it  to  prove  that  the  Missouri 
Synod  was  teaching  Calvinistic  doctrine  regarding  election, 
and  on  the  strength  of  that  they  had  permitted  their  names 
to  be  affixed  to  the  document. — Our  congregation  holds  that 
the  petitioners  should  first  have  tried  to  have  the  matter  set- 
tled in  our  congregation  before  they  carried  it  to  Synod;  and 
that,  after  Synod  had  appointed  a  committee  to  investigate 
this  matter,  the  committee,  at  least,  should  have  called  our 
congregation  and  also  the  petitioners  together,  and  after  hear- 
ing both  sides,  should  have  rendered  their  decision.  Our 
congregation  patiently  waited  to  hear  from  the  committee,  but 
so  far  in  vain.  Now,  we  learn  from  Prof.  Yoder's  pamphlet 
that  the  committee  have  already  rendered  their  decision, 
without  ever  giving  us  a  hearing,  and  have  advised  the  peti- 
tioners to  organize  their  own  congregation.  We  claim  that 
the  committee  have  not  discharged  the  duty  imposed  on  them. 
We  leave  it  to  all  impartial  men  to  say  how  such  action  ought 
to  be  termed.  In  conclusion,  we  would  say,  that  Prof.  Yoder 
is  wrong  in  claiming  that  the  calling  of  our  present  pastor 
has  divided  our  congregation.  The  truth  is,  that  for  ten  years 
we  have  not  had  a  pastor  under  whom  we  were  more  united 
than  under  the  one  we  have  now.  There  has  been  trouble 
in  our  congregation  for  at  least  ten  years,  and  both  Profs. 
Yoder,  and  Mcser,  who  endorses  the  pamphlet  of  Prof.  Yoder, 
know  of  them,  for  they  were  personally  concerned  m  them. 
More  might  be  said,  but  this  will  suffice. 

•  N.  E.  Sigmon. 

N.  E.  Beady. 

B.  E.  Smith. 

F.J.Dellingee. 

J.  J.  Cline. 
Luthee's  Chapel  Congregation,  Glen  Alpine,  N.  C. 
With  regard  to  Luther's  Chapel  congregation  at  Glen  Al- 
pine, N.  C,  we  offer  the  following  facts: 

Mrs.  Edward  Sigmon  was  not  living  at  Glen  Alpine  at  the 
time  of  Prof.  Dau's  call  to  the  pastorate.  Whatever,  there- 
fore, she  said  to  Rev.  Rudisili  regarding  the  "condition"  in 
the  call,  she  must  have  been  told  by  some  one  of  the  congre- 

19 


gation  who  was  present  at  the  calling.  Mr.  J.  J.  Sigmon,  her 
father-in-law,  whom  Prof.  Yoder  mentions  as  present  at  the 
conversation  between  Rev.  Rudisill  and  Mrs.  Sigmon,  and 
assenting  to  what  Mrs.  Edward  Sigmon  said,  states  the  matter 
thus:  "I  remember  the  occasion,  but  I  do  not  recollect  the 
words  that  were  spoken.  But  no  matter  what  was  said,  it  is 
not  so  that  our  pastor  was  called  "under  condition"  thst  he 
join  the  Tennessee  Synod;  he  expressed  hopes  of  being  able 
to  join  the  Tennessee  Synod  after  certain  differences  should 
have  been  adjusted,  however,  when  we  called  him  and  handed 
him  a  written  vocation,  there  were  no  conditions  stipulated, 
except  that  he.  preach  to  us  the  word  of  God  in  accordance 
with  our  confessions,  that  he  lead  a  christian  life  and  faith- 
fully discharge  a  pastor's  duties  among  us." 

In  addition  to  this,  the  congregation  at  Glen  Alpine  offers 
the  following  testimony: 

"After  Prof.  Schaid,  our  former  pastor,  had  left  us,  we  were 
unable  to  obtain  a  pastor, for  more  than  a  year.  We  applied 
to  Hickory,  and  were  promised  that  we  would  be  served,  but 
that  was  all.  Even  appointments  that  had  been  made,  were 
not  filled.  We  then  heard  of  the  n^w  professors  at  Conover, 
and  our  secretary  wrote  to  Mr.  P.  C.  Lail  of  Conover,  de- 
scribing our  need  and  asking  for  a  pastor.  In  consequence 
of  this  Prof.  Dau  visited  us  in  June,  1892,  and  preached  us  a 
sermon.  After  the  sermon  a  meeting  of  the  voting  members 
of  our  church  was  held  to  consider  the  calling  of  a  pastor. 
Prof.  Dau  stated  that  he  was  not  a  member  of  the  Tennessee 
Synod,  and  explained  his  reason  for  not  joining  our  Synod  at 
once;  however,  he  hoped  to  do  so  whenever  the  Tennessee 
Synod  should  sever  her  present  connection  with  the  United 
Synod  of  the  South,  and  he-could  be  sure  that  he  fully  agreed 
with  them.  As  to  his  serving  our  congregation  he  stated  that 
if  the  congregation' desired  further  service  by  him,  they  must 
extend  a  written  call  to  him.  This  was  agreed  to;  the  call 
was  given  him,  and  he  became  our  pastor.  We  cannot  see 
how  any  one  can  find  fault  with  the  manner  in  which  Prof. 
Dau  came  in  to  us,  nor  have  we  any  complaints  to  make  re- 
garding his  ministration  among  us."  J.  D.  Hoke. 

J.  J.  Sigmon. 

In  conclusion,  we  refer  to  a  very  clear  and  strong  paragraph 
on  page  24  of  Prof.  Yoder's  pamphlet  reading:  "In  the  out- 
set they  dictated   terms   upon  which  they  would  condescend 

20 


to  connect  themselves  with  the  Tennessee  Synod,  such  terms 
as  would  practically  make  the  Tennessee  Synod  Missourians, 
i.  e.,  whenever  the  Tennessee  Synod  would  withdraw  from 
the  United  Synod  of  the  South,  and  agree  with  them  in  doc- 
trine and  practice;  of  course,  they  would  connect  themselves 
then,  when  the  Tennesse  Synod  would  become  Missourian." 
Omitting  the  dictation  part,  this  paragraph  contains  facts. 
No  true  Missourian  can  conscientiously  belong  to  so  mixed  a 
body  as  is  the  United  Synod  of  the  South,  and  we  want  no 
outward  union  without  unity.  To  bring  about  such  unity 
free  conferences  were  prepared  and  we  would  hail  with  joy 
the  arranging  of  such  conferences,  but  we  cannot  and  do  not 
mean  to  dictate  them. 

ABE  THE  MISSOUKIANS  PROSELYTERS? 

On  page  25  of  Prof.  Yoder's  pamphlet  we  read:  "Mis- 
souri is  regarded  as  a  disturbing  and  proselyting  Synod, 
not  only  here,  but  also  at  other  places." 

Yes,  Missouri  has  been  denounced  as  a  disturbing  ele- 
ment in  America  and  Europe,  in  Asia  and  Australia,  and  in 
Africa;  and  now  in  these  last  times  Prof.  Yoder  joins  the 
chorus.  Let  us  remind  him  that  the  Thessalonians  knew 
how  to  make  the  same  charge,  for  of  Paul  and  Silas  they 
declared:  These  that  have  turned  the  world  upside  down 
have  come  hither  also,  (Acts  17:6). 

Prof  Yoder  also  goes  to  some  pains  to  quote  what 
others  say  of  Missouri,  whom  he  claims  are  uninterested 
witnesses.  Now,  as  Solomon  has  somewhere  told  us  to 
"let  another  man  praise  thee  and  not  thine  own  lips,"  we 
beg  to  be  excused  from  presenting  encomiums  on  Missouri. 
However,  it  would  be  an  easy  matter  to  do  so,  even  from 
the  minutes  and  church  paper  of  Prof.  Yoder's  own  Synod. 
Then  Prof.  Yoder  says  Dr.  Henkel  never  belonged  to  the 
English  Mo.  Synod.  Of  course  not.  But  he  belonged  to 
and  was  one  of  the  founders  of  the  English  Mo.  Confer- 
ence, which  afterwards  was  organized  into  the  English  Mo. 
Synod  !  And  if  it  is  said  that  the  spirit  of  the  English  Mo. 
Synod  of  today  is  meddlesome  and  abominable,  then  the 
heads  of  its  founders  should  bear  the  odium  of  bringing 
into  beirg  such  a  body.  But  Dr.  Henkel's  labors  in  this 
connection  have  been  commended  by  both  Tennessee  and 
Missouri. 

21 


On  page  26  of  his  pamphlet,  Prof.  Yoder  quotes  Har- 
old &  Zeitschrift,  April  1,  1893,  to  show  that  even  in  the 
Synodical  Conference,  the  general  body  to  which  the  Mo. 
Synod  belongs,  there  is  a  feeling  against  Missouri.  Those 
who  wish  to  investigate  the  truthfulness  of  this  quotation 
and  find  out  what  the  Wisconsin  Synod  has  to  say  as  to 
this  fuss,  can  find  a  reply  to  this  very  quotation  of  the  Pro- 
fessor's by  consulting  the  Gemeindeblatt,  No.  1,  1893.  This 
paper  is  the  official  organ  of  the  Wisconsin  Synod,  and  it 
takes  strong  grounds  against  those  who  publish  articles 
like  the  one  Prof.  Yoder  quotes.  But  for  the  benefit  of 
those  who  may  not  have  an  opportunity  to  see  the  reply 
in  question  we  shall  quote  a  few  words  from  it:  "Finally, 
the  union  is  not  intended  to  isolate  Missouri  and  to  begin 
the  work  of  dissolving  the  Synodical  Conference,  for,  in 
virtue,  the  Synodical  Conference  has  experienced  au  in- 
crease by  the  entrance  of  the  Synod  of  Michigan,  formerly 
not  of  that  body." 

Here  we  have  the  statement  from  the  official  organ  of  the 
Wisconsin  Synod  to  the  effect  that  Wisconsin  does  not  de- 
sire to  isolate  Missouri,  which  would  seem  to  mean  that  she 
has  yet  a  sisterly  affection  for  her  sifter  Synod  of  Missouri 
and  does  not  wish  it  discontinued. 

And  yet,  Prof.  Yoder  asks  who  these  Missourians  are, 
who  these  disturbers  of  the  church  are,  and  what  manner 
of  men  they  art!  Why,  indeed,  they  are  the  same  men  Dr. 
Henkel  tried  to  get  into  North  Carolina  long  ago;  they  are 
the  same  men  he  co-operated  with  in  founding  the  English 
Missouri  Conference,  afterwards  the  English  Synod  of 
Missouri;  they  are  the  same  men  Dr.  Socrates  Henkel  says 
are  very  respectable  people,  and  finally  they  are  the  very 
same  men  whom  Prof.  Yoder  labors  in  a  50  page  pamphlet 
to  misrepresent  and  villify  by  quoting  Nicum,  Ohio,  and 
other  unreliable  sources  of  information. 

Finally,  the  Missourians  in  North  Carolina  are  not 
proselyters  as  the  following  facts  will  show: 

1.  Missouri  did  not  come  to  North  Carolina  discussing 
election  and  raising  a  fuss,  but  Prof.  Yoder  circulated  a 
report  in  advance  of  Prof.  Dau's  coming  to  the  effect  that 
Missouri  was  Calvinistic,  and  Prof  H.  K.  Doermann  of  the 
Ohio  Synod  had  circulated  the  report  that  he  would  chal- 
lenge Prof.  Dau  to  debate  election  as.  soon  as  the  Missou- 
rian  should  arrive  here.      Missouri   was   drawn    into  this 

'JO 


discussion  of  election  unwillingly.      She    had    hoped  to 
agree  with  Tennessee. 

2.  Prof.  Dau  advised  Concordia  congregation  over  one 
year  ago,  when  it  wished  to  withdraw  from  the  Tennessee 
Synod  to  remain  in  the  Tennessee  Synod  as  long  as  there 
was  any  hope  of  Missouri  and  Tennessee  getting  to- 
gether. And  Prof.  Dau  and  the  congregation  are  still 
waiting  almost  against  hope. 

3.  Missouri  has  never  attempted  to  get  students  for 
Concordia  College  in  Tennessee  Congregations  unfriendly 
to  Missouri.  When  students  from  such  congregations  have 
applied  for  admission,  they,  however,  have  been  admitted. 

4.  Every  sermonon  election  preached  in  North  Caro- 
lina by  Missouri  pastors  has  been  by  request.  Missouri 
practices  the  directions  of  Paul  and  the  Book  of  Concord 
in  presenting  this  doctrine.  She  does  not  preach  election 
to  the  exclusion  of  other  doctrines. 

5.  Missouri  'does  not  today  ovm  the  college  property  at 
Conover.  Though  the  Board  of  Trustees  offered  it  to  Mis- 
souri, Missouri  advised  them  to  wait  to  see  whether  Mis- 
souri and  Tennessee  could  not  sometime  soon  unite  in 
church  work  here  in  North  Carolina. 

6.  Missouri  has  been  careful  not  to  distribute  broad- 
cast her  literature,  as  is  the  practice  of  Ohio  in  this  sec- 
tion. Missouri  has  confined  her  work  to  those  congrega- 
tions  over  which  Missouri  pastors  have  the  oversight,  or 
those  in  fellowship  with  them.  Tennessee  pastors  have 
been  sent  copies  of  pamphlets  setting  forth  our  doctrine  of 
election.  The  distribution  of  our  literature  in  congregations 
unfriendly  to  us  has  never  been  practiced  .by  Missouri  in 
North  Carolina." 

7.  And  after  all  that  Prof.  Yoder  can  or  may  say,  it  is 
true  that  the  Missouri  Synod  has  not  added  one  church,  one 
pastor,  or  one  church  member  to  its  fold  on  account  of  the 
presence  and  work  of  Missouri  in  North  Carolina.  This  is 
true  to  date,  Sept.  15,  1894 

Does  any  candid  reader  believe  Missouri  would  have 
acted  thus,  if  she  was  here  in  North  Carolinia  to  proselyte 
Lutherans?  The  actions  of  Missouri  are  a  standing  refuta- 
tion of  this  charge  of  Prof.  Yoder. 


23 


"MISSOURI'S  DOCTRINE  OF  ELECTION." 

In  his  fourth  chapter  Prof.  Yoder  endeavors  to  prove  our 
doctrine  of  election  Calvinistic.  We  herewith  give  to  the 
kind  reader  our  Synod's  final  confession  on  this  doctrine  as 
adopted  at  Ft.  Wayne  in  1880. 


CONFESSION  OF  THE  SYNOD  OF  MISSOURI    ON    THE    DOCTRINE    OF 

PREDESTINATION. 

% 

"1.  We  believe,  teach  and  confess,  that  God  loved  the  whole 
world  from  eternity,  created  all  men  unto  salvation,  none  unto 
damnation,  and  that  He  earnestly  wills  the  salvation  of  all  men; 
and  we  therefore  reject  and  condemn  with  all  our  heart  the  contrary 
Calvinistic  doctrine. 

"2.  We  believe,  teach  and  con fesss,  that  the  Son  of  God  c  me 
into  the  world  for  all  men,  that  He  bore  and  expiated  the  sins  of  all 
men,  and  that  He  fully  redeemed  all  men,  none  excepted;  we  there- 
fore reject  and  condemn  the  contrary  Calvinistic  doctrine  with  all 
our  heart. 

"8.  We  believe,  teach  and  confess,  that  God  calls  through  the 
means  of  grace  all  men  earnestly,  that  is,  with  the  purpose  that  they 
should,  through  these  means,  be  brought  to  repantehce  and  faith, 
also  be  preserved  therein  unto  their  end,  and  thus  be  finally  led  to 
blessedness,  conformable  to  which  purpose  God  offers  them  through 
the  means  of  grace  the  salvation  wrought  by  Christ's  atonement 
and  the  power  to  embrace  this  salvation  by  faith;  and  we  therefore 
reject  and  condemn  the  contrary  Calvinistic  doctrine  with  all  our 
heart.  % 

"4.  We  believe,  teach  and  confess,  that  no  one  perishek  because 
God  was  not  willing  that  he  be  saved,  passed  him  by  with  His  grace; 
and  because  He  had  not  also  offered  him  the  grace  of  perseveran  ce 
and  was  not  willing  to  bestow  the  same  upon  him.  But  all  men  that 
perish,  perish  because  of  their  own  fault,  because  of  their  unbelief 
and  because  they  contumaciously  resisted  the  Word  and  grace  unto 
their  end.  The  cause  of  this  contempt  of  the  Word  is  not  God's  fore- 
knowledge^? praescientia  vel  praedestinatio,)  but  man's  perverted 
will  which  rejects  or  perverts  the  means  and  the  instrument  of  the 

24 


Holy  Spirit, which  God  offers  unto  it  through  the  call,  and  it  resists 
the  Holy  Spirit  who  would  be  efficacious  and  operate  through  the 
Word,  as  Christ  says:  Matth.  23:37,  How  often  would  I  have  gathered 
you  together,  and  ye  would  not,  {Form,  of  Concord  p.  718,  §41.)  There" 
'fore  we  reject  and  condemn  the  contrary  Calvinistic  doctrine  with 
all  our  heart. 

"5.  We  believe,  teach  and  confess,  that  the  elect  or  predestinated 
persons  are  only  the  true  believers,  who  truly  believe  unto  their 
end  or  yet  at  the  end  of  their  life;  we  reject  therefore  and  condemn 
the  error  of  Huber,  that  election  is  not  particular,  but  universal  and 
pertains  to  all  men. 

"6.  We  believe,  teach  and  confess,  that  the  divine  decree  of 
election  is  unchangeable  and  that  therefore  no  elect  person  can  be- 
come a  reprobate  and  perish,  but  that  every  one  of  the  elect  will 
surely  be  saved:  and  we  therefore  reject  and  condemn  the  contrary 
Huberian  error  with  all  our  heart. 

"7.  We  believe,  teach  and.  confess,  that  it  is  foolish  and  soul- 
endangering,  leads  either  to  carnal  security  or  despair  to  endeavor 
to  become  or  be  sure  of  our  own  election  or  eternal  happiness  by 
means  of  seai'ching  out  the  eternal  secret  decree  of  God;  and  we  re- 
ject and  condemn  the  contrary  doctrine  as  an  injurious  fanatic  no- 
tion with  all  our  heart. 

u8.  We  believe,  teach  and  confess,  that  a  true  believer  ought  to 
endeavor  to  become  sure  of  his  election  from  God's  revealed  will ; 
and  we  therefore  reject  and  condemn  with  all  our  heart  the  opposite 
Papistical  error,  that  one  may  become  or  be  sure  of  his  election  and 
salvation  only  by  means  of  a  new  immediate  revelation. 

"9.  We  believe,  teach  and  confess:  1.  That  election  does  not 
consist  in  the  mere  fact  that  God  foresaw  which  men  will  secure 
salvation;  2.  That  election  's'also  not  the  mere  purpose  of  God  to 
redeem  and  save  men,  which  would  make  it  universal  and  extend 
in  general  to  all  men;  3^That  election  does  not  embrace  those 
'which  believe  for  awhile'  (Luke  8:12.)  4.  That  election  is  not  a 
mere  decree  of  God  to  lead  to  bliss  all  those  who  would  believe  unto 
their  end;  we  therefore  reject  and  condemn  the  opposite  errors  of 
Rationalists,  Huberians  and  Arminians  with  all  our  heart. 

"10.  We  believe,  teach  and  confess,  that  the  cause  which  moved 
God  to  elect,  is  alone  His  grace  and  the  merit  of  Jesus  Christ,  and 
not  anything  good  foreseen  by  God  in  the  elect,  not  even  faith  fore- 
seen in  them  by  God;  and  we  therefore  reject  and  condemn  the  op- 


posite  doctrines  of  the  Pelagians,  Seini-Pelagians  and  Synergists  as 
blasphemous,  dreadful  errors  which  subvert  the  Gospel  and  there- 
with the  whole  Christian  religion. 

"11.  We  believe,  teach  and  confess,  that  election  is  not  the  mere 
divine  foresight  or  prescience  of  the  salvation  of  the  elect,  but  also 
a  cause  of  their  salvation  and  of  whatever  pertains  to  it;  and  we 
therefore  reject  and  condemn  the  opposite  doctrines  of  the  Armin- 
ians,  Socinians,  and  of  all  Synergists  with  all  our  heart. 

"12.  We  believe,  teach  and  confess,  that  God  has  also  concealed 
and  kept  secret  many  things  concerning  the  mystery  of  election  and 
reserved  them  for  His  wisdom  and  knowledge  alone,  into  which  no 
human  being  is  able  and  ought  to  search;  and  we  therefore  reject 
every  attempt  to  inquire  curiously  also  into  these  things  which  have 
not  been  revealed,  and  to  harmonize  with  our  reason  those  things 
which  seem  contradictory  to  our  reason,  may  such  attempts  be 
made  by  Calvinistic,  or  Pelagianistic  Synergistic  doctrines  of  men. 

"13.  We  believe,  teach  and  confess,  that  it  is  not  only  not  use- 
less, much  less  injurious,  but  necessary  and  salutary  that  the  mys- 
terious doctrine  of  election,  in  so  far  as  it  is  clearly  revealed  in  God's 
Word,  be  presented  also  publicly  to  Christian  people,  and  we  there- 
fore do  not  agree  with  those  who  hold  that  entire  silence  should  be 
kept  thereon,  or  that  its  discussion  should  only  be  indulged  in  by 
learned  theologians."  C.  A.  F.  Tr. 

With  this  ''Confession"  Synod,  at  the  same  time,  issued 
the  following  directions  : 

With  these  13  theses  we  do  not  connect  any  other  meaning  than 
that  suggested  by  the  words  in  their  native  sense.  Anyone  who 
really  accepts  these  theses,  as  they  read,  is  one  with  us  in  faith.  We 
confess  that  in  these  theses  there  is  laid  down  the  sum  and  sub- 
stance of  what  we  believe  regarding  the  eternal  election  of  God.  At 
the  same  time  we  herewith  state  that  we  do  not  agree  to  anything 
that  is  not  in  harmony  with  these  theses,  even  if  it  were  found 

IN  OUR  OWN  PUBLICATIONS.      We  KNOW  OF  NO  SECRET  OR    HIDDEN 

meaning  in  these  theses.— Min.  Gen.   Syn.   of  Mo.,   1881,   p.   37. 
[Emphasized  passages  our  own.] 

Prof.  Yoder  will  grant  that  the  author,  of  a  book  is  the 
best  interpreter  of  that  book.  If  he  cannot  harmonize  the 
quotations  from  our  publications,  which  he  has  somewhere 
discovered,  we  advise  him  to  throw  them  away  and  devote 
himself  entirely  to  the  13  theses.  As  to  those  quotations 
on  pages  30  and  31  of  his  pamphlet,  he  himself  states  that 
he  obtained  them  "not  from  the  original,"  because    he  "did 

26 


not  have  them  on  hand."  It  is  a  question  with  us,  whether 
Prof.  Yoder  did  ever  read  one  entire  article  in  those  of  our 
publications  from  which  he  quotes.  If  he  does  not  consid- 
er it  worth  while  to  convince  himself  of  the  truth  of  what 
he  quotes,  if  he  accepts  garbled  statements  which  others 
put  into  his  hand,  does  he  really  expect  us  to  answer  him  ? 
The  best  answer  which  we  couldmake  to  his  quotations  and 
the  hideous  errors  which  he  deduces  therefrom,  imputing 
them  to  us  as  part  of  our  faith,  should  be  to  simply  reproduce 
those  entire  articles  from  which  he  quotes.  And  if  the 
Lord  spares  our  life  we  shall  do  so,  and  were  it  for  no  oth- 
er purpose  but  to  convince  Prof.  Yoder  that  he  is  misrepre- 
senting us  with  the  assistance  of  Ohio. 

However,  we  shall  note  some  important  objections  to  our 
doctrine,  which  Prof.  Yoder  raises.  Quoting  our  X  Thesis 
he  "calls  attention  to  the  fact  that  'faith'  is  excluded"  in  the 
same.  (p.  29.)  Yes,  so  it  is!  And  woe  to  the  Lutheran 
who  should  include  faith  in  such  a  thesis!  For,  the  thesis 
speaks  of  "the  cause  which  moved  God  to  elect  "  Does  our 
Book  of  Concord  mention  faith  as  a  cause  of  election?  Prof. 
Yoder  quotes  copiously  from  the  Form  of  Concord,  but  he 
has  not  one  quotation  to  show  that  faith  is  "included"  among 
the  causes  of  election.  The  Form  of  Concord,  Epitome,  XI 
Art.,  rejects  the  following  error;  viz:  "That  the  mercy  of 
God,  and  the  most  holy  merit  of  Christ,  are  not  the  only 
cause  of  the  election  of  God,  but  that  in  us  also  there  is  a 
cause,  on  account  of  which  God  has  elected  us  to  eternal 
life."— (New  Mark  ,  2  Ed.,  p.  586.)  In  this  paragraph  our 
Church  also  "excludes"  faith,  and  it  is  now  for  Prof.  Yoder 
to  reject  the  Confessions  of  our  Church,  for  the  same  rea- 
son that  he  rejects  our  X  Thesis :  they  both  ''exclude" 
faith  as  a  cause  of  election. 

By  Prof.  Yoder's  remark  on  our  X  Thesis  the  impres- 
sion is  left  on  unwary  minds  that  Missouri  teaches  an  elec- 
tion without  faith;  at  least  Prof.  Yoder  was  not  kind  enough 
to  point  out  in  the  quotation  which  he  makes  from  Prof. 
Pieper's  book,  that  we  teach  an  election  which  includes 
faith.  We,  therefore,  "call  attention  to  this  fact."  And  to 
throw  further  light  on  this  point  we  offer  the  following 
from  our  publications  : 

Dr.  W alther  said  at  Chicago  in  1880  : 

"If  it  is  said  that  God  elected  those  of  whom  he  foresaw  that 
that  they  would  finally  believe,   that  is  correct.      However,    as 

27 


soon  as  one  says  :     He  elected  them,  because  He  foresaw  that  they 
would  finally  believe,  that  is  false.— (Minutes,  etc.,  p.  501.) 

Prof.  Hoeckhardt : 

"It  is  the  same  whether  we  say  :  God  decreed  to  save  by  faith 
each  and  every  person  of  the  elect,  or  :  God  has  predestinated  to 
faith  and  salvation  each  and  every  person  of  the  elect.  In  this 
case  faith  represents  the  intermediate,  salvation  the  ultimate  end  of 
the  election  of  Grod.'—CL.  u.  W.  1880,  p.  235.) 

Prof.  Yoder  has  been  at  some  pains  to  establish  har- 
mony between  the  canons  of  the  Synod  of  Dort  and  our 
publications.  Now,  we  should  very  much  like  to  see  Calvin's 
followers  abandon  that  doctrine  of  which  their  master  him- 
self professedthat  it  is  a  "horrible"  doctrine  (Calv.  Inst.  Ill, 
237;)  however,  on  the  strength  of  what  Arts.  IX  and  X  of  the 
Canons  of  Dort  say  regarding-  election,  we  cannot  yet  strike 
hands  with  them;  just  as  little  as  we  could  unite  with  the 
Church  of  Rome,  because  it  also  teaches  that  the  bread  and 
wine  in  the  Eucharist  are  (not  signifying)  the  body  and 
blood  of  Christ.  However,  this  maueuvre  of  Prof.  Yoder, 
too,  is  old.  Pres.  Beyer  of  the  Eastern  Dist.  of  our  Synod, 
in  his  opening  address  at  York,  Pa.,  in  1832  has  an  elabor- 
ate treatise  on  this  question:  What  answer  shall  we  make 
to  the  charge  which  is  raised-against  us — viz.,  that  we  are 
Krypto-Calvinists  '?  (i.  e.,  Calvinists  in  disguise.)  He  takes 
up  our  thirteen  theses  in  their  order  and  by  offering  coun- 
ter testimony  from  Calv  inistic  writers  and  churches  on  the 
main  points  of  difference  between  them  and  us,  shows  to 
the  satisfaction  of  any  impartial  mind  that  the  chanre  of 
Caivinistic  tendencies  in  our  doctrine  is,  to  say  the  least,  un- 
founded. We  kindly  ask  Prof.  Yoder  to  study  this  address. 
In  addition  we  offer  the  following  : 

Prof.  Pieper : 

The  constellation,  at  present,  is  odd.  Formerly  Caivinistic  er- 
rors in  the  article  concerning  predestination  were  fought,  over 
against  those  who  placed  a  predestination  unto  damnation  along- 
side of  the  predestination  unto  salvation, -who  denied  the  universali- 
ty of  the  gracious  will  of  God,  of  the  merit  of  Christ,  of  the  serious 
efficacy  of  the  means  of  grace.  We  do  not  place  a  predestination 
unto  damnation  alongside  of  the  predestination  unto  salvation; 
we  teach  a  gracious  will  of  God  which  seriously  extends  to  all,  a 
perfect  redemption  through  Christ  that  is  universal,  a  serious  effect 
of  the  Word  of  God  upon  the  hearts  of  all  whose  ears  are  reached  by 
the  sound  of  the  gospel.    We  also  teach  that    the   grace   of   pei 

28 


verance  is  offered  to  all  who  have  come  to  faith,  so  that,  if  a  person 
is  lost,  he  has  brought  damnation  upon  himself,  solely  by  his  resist- 
ance to  the  operation  of  the  Holy  Spirit  in  the  Word  and  Sacra- 
ments, and  that  in  opposition  to  the  gracious  will  of  God.  How- 
ever, we  reject  as  unscriptural  and  unconfessional  that  definition  of 
election  which  represents  it  as  having  taken  place  in  consequence  of 
foreseen  faith.  We,  on  the  contrary,  contend  that,  according  to  the 
Scriptures  and  the  Confessions,  the  faith  whieh  is  wrought  in  time 
and,  in  general,  the  entire  spiritual  life  of  those  who  are  saved,  are 
to  be  placed  in  such  a  relation  to  election  that  election  can  and  must 
justly  be  called  a  cause  of  faith  and  of  spiritual  life. — (L.  &  W.,  vol. 
27,  p.  4.) 

The  Synod  teaches  a  doctrine  of  predestination  which 
disregards  the  work  of  our  Saviour.  The  X  Art.  which 
Prof.  Yoder  quotes  leaves  out  Christ  entirely;  nor  does  Art. 
IX  refer  to  Him.     What  do  oue  people  say  ? 

Dr.  Walther  in  the  much-abused  Minutes  of  the  West 
Dist.  of  1877,  p.  25,  is  put  on  record  thus  : 

"In  this  connection  it  must  be  noted,  too,  that  the  apostle 
(Eph.  1:3-6)  expressly  says,  we  are  elected  by  Jesus  Christ;  there- 
fore, it  is  a  wicked  doctrine  to  say  that  first  election  took  place  with 
God  in  eternity,  and  then  He  prevailed  upon  His  Son,  so  to  speak, 
to  execute  this  decree  of  His.  On  the  contrary,  Christ  is  the  eter- 
nal foundation,  and  because  and,  humanly  speaking,  after  God  the 
Father  willed  to -surrender  His  dear  Son  for  the  lost  sinful  world, 
therefore,  and  not  before  that,  He  could,  without  ceasing  to  be  God, 
elect  all  those  who  should  believe  in  His  Son  unto  the  end." 

Prof.  Yoder  is  in  a  sore  plight.  He  wants  faith  in- 
cluded among  the  causes  of  election;  that  the  Lutherans 
will  not  do  for  him,  nor  even  the  Calvinists.  Who  will?  On- 
ly men  who  have  discarded  the  old,  glorious  banner-truth 
of  the  Evangelical  Lutheran  Church — viz  ,  Soli  Deo  Gloria  ! 
— i.  e.,  "All  glory  b"e  to  God  alone;"  men  who  can  teach 
that,  in  man's  conversion  and  salvation,  "much,  yea  rightly 
understood,  all  depends  upon  the  conduct  of  man;"  these 
and  only  these  will  accept  Prof.  Yoder's  doctrine  of  election 
in  view  of  foreseen  faith. 

PEOF.  YODER  AND  THE  "FATHERS." 

Having  failed  to  prove  his  doctrine  of  election  in  view  of 
foreseen  faith  from  the  Book  of  Concord,  Prof.  Yoder,  on  page 
34  of  his  pamphlet,  begins  to  appeal   to  the  "Fathers."     He 

29 


writes:  "If  fathers  are  to  be  considered,  let  us  consider  fath- 
ers. All  these  theologians  teach  Hn  view  of  faithj  as  the  cor- 
rect interpretation  of  the  Confessions."  We  ask:  Who 
requires  Prof.  Yoder  to  "consider  fathers"?  Missouri's 
teachers  do  not  claim  to  be  fathers,  as  Prof.  Yoder  asserts. 
Their  doctrine  is  that  of  the  Confessions,  not  of  the  fathers. 
However,  Prof.  Yoder  needs  the  "fathers;"  the  expression  'in 
view  of  faith'  occurs  in  the  private  writings  of  many  Luth- 
eran theologians  (not  all);  it  does  not  occur  in  the  Bible, 
nor  in  the  Confessions. 

That  the  writings  of  the  "fathers"  cannot  be  binding  upon 
us,  Prof.  Yoder  seems  to  concede;  he  looks  upon  them  as  "in- 
terpreters" of  the  Confessions.  This  may  seem  harmless,  yet 
it  is  a  dangerous  position  for  a  Lutheran  to  occupy,  especial- 
ly when  the  "fathers"  are  adduced  to  decide  what  is  the  real 
sense  of  the  Confessions.  In  that  case,  we  should  be  bound 
to  the  Confessions  as  the  theologians  of  our  Church  have  in- 
terpreted them.  This  is  unlutheran;  this  is  reviving  the 
old  popish  error  of  traditions.  We  will  accept  of  the  service 
of  our  great  theologians  when  they  offer  us  their  learning, 
the  fruits  of  their  busy  and  untiring  studies,  and  thank  God 
that  he  has  blessed  our  church  with  such  men;  but  they  can 
never  decide  for  us  what  our  Confessions  teach ;  that  we  de- 
cide for  ourselves  from  the  very  Confessions.  Prof.  Yoder 
mistakes  us  when  he  imagines  that  we  are  "interpreting"  the 
Confessions,  we  are  simply  restating  them ;  we  would  not,  for 
aught  in  this  world,  bind  any  one  to  what  we  say;  but  we  bind 
our  people  to  the  Confessions  "in  rebus  et  phrasibus"  i.  e., 
both  in  regard  to  the  facts  stated  there  and  the  manner  of 
stating  them.  We  do  not  write  upon  our  banner  an  extra- 
confessional  expression,  such  as  "in  view  of  faith"  and  make 
that  one  shibboleth.  How  were  our  people  to  judge  of  the 
correctness  of  our  teaching,  if  in  case  of  doubt  or  dispute, 
we  were  to  refer  to  the  interpretations  of  the  fathers?  They 
have  not  read  the  works  of  the  "fathers"  and  the  great  major- 
ity of  them  cannot  be  expected  to  have  read  them,  because 
they  are  written  in  a  foreign  language.  Prof.  Yoder  simply 
deceives  himself  when  he  declares  he  will  not  be  bound  by 
the  fathert:  he  actually  does  bind  himself  to  them  in  this 
controversy,  for  he  cannot  hope  to  make  good  his  case,  except 
with  the  "fathers."  And  even  then,  all  that  he  can  prove  by 
a  number  of  them,  is  that  they  used  the  same  phrase  which 

30 


he  has  adopted,  however,  connecting  with  it  quite  a  different 
meaning  from  his. 

Prof.  Yoder  writes:  "All  these  theologians  teach  'in  view 
of  faith.'  "  This  is  bold.  We  doubt  whether  Prof.  Yoder 
even  knows  the  names  of  "all"  much  less  do  we  believe  that 
he  has  even  seen  the  writings  of  all,  and  still  less,  that  he  has 
read  them  all.  We  have  read  only  a  few,  and  would  despair 
if  we  were  to  prove  our  doctrine  by  "all  these  theologians." 
Here  are  a  few  specimens: 

Hutter,  the  same  authority  whom  Prof.  Yoder  quotes,  writes 
in  his  'Explanation  of  the  Book  of  Concord'  page  1101:  "We 
readily  concede  that  neither  faith  nor  the  foreknowledge  of 
faith  is  the  cause  of  our  election."  This  statement  would 
seem  to  cast  the  first  gloom  over  Prof.  Yoder's  pretended 
unanimity  of  the  "fathers"  on  the  doctrine  of  "foreseen  faith." 
Prof.  Yoder  desires  that  faith  be  "included"  among  the  causes 
of  election;  ergo,  Prof.  Yoder  ought  henceforth  to  have  no 
use  for  Hutter. 

Musaeus  in  1680 — a  hundred  years  after  the  final  adoption 
of  the  Book  of  Concord — also  claims  that  all  theologians  up 
to  his  day  have  taught  the  doctrine  of  in  view  of  faith;  "but," 
says  he,  "what  kind  of  a  relation  to  the  decree  of  predestina- 
tion foreseen  faith  represents,  whether  that  of  a  cause,  or  that 
of  a  condition  to  be  fulfilled  on  the  part  of  the  subject  of  pre- 
destination, or  another? — on  this  question  they  have,  for 
many  years  entertained  various  ideas,  nor  have  they  been 
able  to  fully  agree  on  the  terms  and  phases  by  which  this 
relation  might  be  most  fitly  described  and  expressed. "-^- 
(Comp.  L.  W.  W.  Vol.  16,  page  50.)  Here  we  even  have  a 
"father"  that  says  the  "fathers"  have  not  agreed  among  them- 
selves as  to  the  best  way  of  expressing  their  opinions.  This 
is  bad  for  Prof.  Yoder's  claim:     "All  these  theologians,  &c." 

But  the  practical  value  of  adopting  all  these  theologians 
will  appear  still  more  questionable,  by  the  following  illustra- 
tion- 


Chemnitz,  one  of  the  au- 
thors of  the  Form  of  Concord 
writes: 

"The  election  of  God  does 
not  follow  after  our  faith  and 
righteousness,  but  precedes 
the  same,  being  the   efficient 


Quenstedt,  a  Lutheran  theo- 
logian, writes: 

"That  the  consideration  of 
faith,  in  the  view  of  the  di- 
vine mind,  preceded  the  decree 
of  salvation,  or  which  is  the 
same  thing,    that  men    who 


31 


cause  thereof." — Echiridon,  should  continue  in  faith  in 
page  210,  sec.  9.  Christ,  were  elected, is  proven, 

&c,  &c. — Quoted  in  Luthern 
Standard,  June  19,  1880. 

Let  the  attentive  and  patient  reader  ponder  the  respective 
contents  of  these  two  counter  statements  always  remember- 
ing Prof.  Yoder's  sweeping:  assertion :  UAU  these  theologians, 
&c,  &c.  Surely,  between  Chemnitz  and  Quenstedt,  the 
agreement  on  the  "in  view  of  faith"  doctrine,  is  rather  misty. 
Like  the  church  steeple  which  the  little  boy  described,  it 
takes,  at  least,  two  stout  men  to  see  it.  Our  farmers  with 
their  broad  common  sense  when  they  read  over  these  two  quo- 
tations, will  shake  their  heads  and  declare  that  "these  here 
'fathers'  are  rather  somewhat  agin  each  other." 

And  another  illustration,  which  makes  matters  even  worse 
than  those  preceding.  We  quote  two  definitions  from  Quen- 
stedt: 


Predestination 

(1.)  is  an  act  of  the  divine 
will, 

(2.)  by  which  God,  before 
the  foundations  of  the  world 
were  laid, 

(3.)  not  according  to  our 
works, 

(4.)  but  from  mere  compas- 
sion. 

(5.)  according  to  his  pur- 
pose and  good  pleasure  which 
he  purposed  in  himself, 

(6.)  in  view  of  Christ's  mer- 
its to  be  apprehended  by  faith. 

(7.)  ordained  unto  eternal 
life, 

(8.)  men  who  by  the  power 
of  the  Holy  Ghost, 

(9.)  through  the  preaching 
of  the  gospel, 

(10.)  perseveringly  and  fi- 


nally. 

(11.) 
Christ, 


would     believe     in 


Reprobation 

(1.)  is  an  act  of  the  most 
free  will  of  the  triune  God, 

(2.)  by  which  He  before  the 
foundations  of  the  world  were 
laid, 

(3.) 

(4.)  from  righteous  vindic- 
tior  justice, 
(5.) 


(6.)  on  account  of  foreseen 
final  rejection  of  Christ's  mer- 
its, 

(7.)  determined  to  damn  to 
eternity, 

(8.)  those  who  by  their  own 
fault, 


(9.) 
(10.) 

(11.) 
tion. 


are  fitted  to  destruc- 


32 


(12.)  unto  the  praise  of  his  j  (12.)  to  the  praise  of  his 
glorious  grace.  j  glorious  justice. 

In  order  to  facilitate  comparison  we  have  divided  these  de- 
finitions and  arranged  their  corresponding  terms  in  parallel 
columns.  The  Lutheran  reader  will,  on  first  view,  be  some- 
what bewildered  by  this  exhibition.  What!  he  will  exclaim, 
do  these  fathers,  then,  teach  a  twofold  predestination? — Yes, 
dear  reader,  so  they  do.  We  can  refer  also  to  Baier,  who  in 
his  Positive  Theology,  has  the  same  arrangements,  (Ed.  Wal- 
ther  III,  page  601,  2-8)  to  Hollaz,  (Exam.  Theol,  P.  Ill,  22- 
75),  to  Koenig,  (Nucleus  Theol.  Pos.  p.  388-362),  &c.  Such 
an  arrangement  we  do  not  find  in  our  Confessions,  and  our 
Lutheran  theologians  have  here  gone  too  far  for  the  common 
reader.  If  they  are  to  be  regarded  as  "interpreters"  of  the 
Confessions  and  their  "interpretations"  endorsed,  there  ought 
to  be  an  explanation  given,  at  least  at  this  place.  Our  Luth- 
eran Church  teaches  only  one  gracious  predestination  of  be- 
lievers unto  life,  not  a  corresponding  just  predestination  of 
unbelievers  unto  death.  Ohio  removes  the  difficulty  in  the 
following  heroic  manner:  "The  dogmatical  use  of  the  terms 
predestination  and  election  accords  with  the  truth  and  is  use- 
ful for  the  systematic  presentation  of  the  doctrine,  but  it  is 
not  available  for  practical  purposes."  (Luth.  Standard  38,  p. 
170,  col.  1.)  This  means:  The  dogmaticians  speak  of  elec- 
tion in  a  manner  that  learned  professors  can  understand  them, 
but  our  common  people  must  take  a  back  seat  when  they  offer 
their  "systematic  presentation."  Accordingly,  Prof.  Stell- 
horn  in  the  tract  in  which  he  enlightens  the  public  on  "What 
is  the  real  question  in  the  present  controversy  on  predestina- 
tion?" with  a  coolness  that  is  admirable,  begins  thus:  "In 
this  controversy,  quite  a  number  of  points  have  been  touched 
and  discussed,  that  are  somewhat  difficult  to  be  grasped  and 
understood  by  the  average  Christian^  unless  he  possesses  an 
especially  penetrating  mind  and  good  christian  knowledge?"* 
However,  the  climax  is  reached  when  the  "fathers"  declare 
that  they  do  not  agree  with  the  Form  of  Concord.  Thus 
writes  Loescher,  Theol.  thet.  p.  258:  "The  word  predestina- 
tion has  indeed  a  wider  signification,  yet  not  in  the  Bible,  but 
in  the  Symbolical  books.  Therefore  we  again  distinguish 
between  the  Symbolical  and  the  Biblical  meaning.  That  is 
a  wide,  this  a  narrow  one.  That  has  no  place  here,  except  to 
relegate  it;   for  we    expound  this  doctrine  out  of    the  Scrip- 

33 


tures."  Here  the  exposition  which  our  Form  of  Concord 
gives  of  the  Bible  doctrine  of  Election  is  pronounced  un bib- 
lical by  a  "father."  Enough  said.  We  truly  hope  that  Prof. 
"Voder  will  henceforth  couple  better  foresight  with  his  zeal  in 
the  defense  of  the  doctrines  of  our  Church.  Human  author- 
ity is  never  altogether  reliable. 

Prof.  Yoder  also  quotes  from  Dr.  Aug.  Pfeiffer^s  "Anti-Cal- 
vanism,"  and  on  page  37  states  how  highly  this  book  was  re- 
commended in  this  country  some  years  ago.  It  will  be  a  great 
surprise  to  Prof.  Yoder  to  read  that  Missouri,  too,  hailed  the 
publication  of  this  book  with  delight.  We  append  the  "Re- 
view" of  this  book  as  it  appeared  in  the  "St.  Louis  Theologi- 
cal Monthly"  of  May,  1881,  page  15: 

"St.  Paul  writes  that  once  there  were  some  who  preached 
Christ,  supposing  to  add  afflictions  to  his  bonds;  but  he  adds, 
Notwithstanding,  every  way,  whether  in  pretence,  or  in  truth, 
Christ  is  preached;  and  I  therein  do  rejoice,  yea,  and  will  re- 
joice." (Phil.  1: 15-19.)  Of  these  words  of  the  holy  Apostle 
we  were  reminded,  immediately  on  seeing  brave  A.  Pfeiffer's 
Anti-Calvinism  in  a  new  garb,  we  mean,  in  an  English  trans- 
lation. Under  present  circumstances  we  at  once  surmised 
that  this  book  owed  its  reappearance  principally  to  the  wish, 
it  might  serve  as  a  weapon  against  us  in  the  controversy  on 
Predestination  which  has  lately  arisen.  We  were  not,  in- 
deed, deceived.  The  new  introduction  confirms,  distinctly 
enough,  what  we  conjectured.  Nevertheless,  we  gladly  wel- 
come the  book.  We  are  confident  that  many  of  thobe  who 
will  peruse  it  for  the  very  reason  of  its  being  intended  to  add 
affliction  to  us,  will  in  this  way  get  a  relish  for  the  old  Luth- 
eran theology.  Dr.  Pfeiffer  in  this  book  has  thoroughly  and 
victoriously  refuted  the  errors  which  are  characteristically 
calvinistic.  In  his  presentation  of  the  Lutheran  doctrine  of 
Predestination  he  follows,  indeed,  the  form  of  doctrine  intro- 
duced into  our  Church  by  Aegidius  Hunnius,  and  which  rep- 
resents God's  eternal  election  as  having  been  made  intuitu 
fidei  (i.  e.  in  view  of  faith).  But  in  this  work  of  his  he  him- 
self offers  sufficient  aid  for  the  attentive  reader  who  holds 
fast  to  our  Confession,  to  easily  correct  him  on  this  point  by 
his  own  words.  We,  therefore,  embrace  this  opportunity  of 
recommending  the  book  to  the  English  reading  public." 

Lastly,  Dietrich  is  called  upon  the  witness-stand  to  testify 
against  us.     It  is  said  that  at  Conover  last  January  we  faih  d 

34 


to  express  ourselves  on  his  catechism;  although  other  speak- 
ers offered  to  give  their  time  to  Prof.  Dau,  that  he  might, 
make  answer.  How  is  this?  Prof.  Dau  can  show  from  the 
paper  which  he  used  at  that  conference,  and  on  which  he 
jotted  down  the  points  on  which  to  speak,  that  he  was  ready 
then  to  make  answer  as  to  Dietrich's  catechism.  Rev.  Smith 
once  offered  him  his  time,  but  as  soon  as  this  was  done  Prof. 
Cline  protested,  and  to  equalize  matters,  Prof.  Cline  offered 
his  time  to  Prof.  Doermann.  Seeing  that  his  opponents 
thought  that  he  was  taking  advantage  of  them,  Prof.  Dau  re- 
fused to  accept  Rev.  Smiths  offer,  and  took  his  seat.*  A  great 
noise  has  been  made  about  this  matter  which  we  now  hope  to 
hush  forever. 

WHAT  DOES  J.  C.  DIETRICH'S  CATECHISM  TEACH   ON   ELECTION  ? 

Repeatedly  have  we  Missourians  been  asked  :  Do  you 
endorse  what  Dietrich's  Catechism  teaches  on  election?  It 
seems  very  strange  indeed  that  we  should  be  required  to 
give  an  answer  to  such  a  question,  when  it  is  so  well  known 
a  fact  that  we  use  this  catechism  in  all  our  churches  and 
schools  for  the  instruction  of  our  own  children.  But  also 
Prof.  Yoder  in  his  pampb'et,  p.  38,  says:  "Also  Dietrich's 
Catechism  which  they  (Missouri)  have  used  for  thirty  years 
or  more,  and  whose  teaching  on  election  they  for  a 
long  time  endorsed,  but  will  not  do  so  now,  although  they 
continue  to  use  it  in  their  school  and  catechetical  classes  in 
this  section,  teaches  this  same  'in  view  of  faith'  doctrine." 
As  such  unfounded  assertions  are  spread  out  in  public 
print  we  will  here  give  a  clear  and  unmistakable  answer  to 
the  above  question,  and  our  answer  is  this  :  We  fully  en- 
dorse Dietrich's  Catechism,  as  in  other  points  so  also  in  the  ar- 
ticle of  election,  as  teaching  correct  doctrine,  and  we  repudiate 
the  assertion  that  this  catechism  teaches  an  election  in  fore- 
sight of  faith.  Let  us  see  what  this  catechism  does  teach 
on  election.  Into  what  relation  the  catechism  places  elec- 
tion and  the  creation  of  faith  is  clear  from  question  281  : 

"Why  is  He  called  the  Holy  Spirit  ? 

"Because  He  is  the  author  of  true  holiness,  and  truly  sanctifies 
all  the  elect." 

Here  the  word  sanctification  comprises  the  whole  work 
of  the  Holy  Ghost  for  man's  salvation,  of  course  also  the 
kindling  and  preserving  of  faith,  and  election  is  placed    be 

35 


fore  sanctification.  It  is  presented  as  a  cause  from  which 
sanctification  is  consequent.  The  catechism  here  speaks  of 
election  like  Acts  13:48 — "As  many  as  were  ordained"  to 
eternal  life  believed."  They  were  ordained  to  eternal  life, 
and  so  they  believed,  and  the  text  does  not  say  they  be- 
lieved and  so  were  ordained  to  eternal  life.  The  catechism 
does  not  say  those  who  are  sanctified  He  elects,  but  contra- 
riwise, those  who  are  elect  He  sanctifies.  According  to 
this  answer  sanctification  flows  from  election,  and  not  elec- 
tion from  sanctification,  and  this  excludes  the  idea  of  elec< 
tion  in  view  of  faith.  So  from  the  very  first  question  iD 
which  the  catechism  touches  on  election  it  is  certain  that 
this  book  does  not  teach  an  election  in  foresight  of  faith. 
And  in  this  teaching  the  catechism  is  consistent  throughout. 

Ques.  321. — "What  then  is  the  divine  election  of  grace  ? 

"It  is  that  act  of  Grod  by  which  He,  according  to  the  purpose  of 
His  will,  alone  out  of  His  grace  and  mercy  in  Christ,  has  resolved  to 
save  all  those  who  shall  steadfastly  believe  in  Christ,  to  the  praise 
of  His  glorious  grace." 

Besides  assigning  the  causes  of  election  the  catechism  here 
says  who  the  elect  are — namely,  the  believing  Christians, 
and  not  the  unbelieving,  but  it  is  not  said  because  God  fore- 
saw that  men  would  believe,  therefore  He  elected  them.  To 
so  construe  the  words  is  corrupting  them  and  making  the 
catechism  contradict  itself;  for  the  next  question  reads  : 

"What  is  the  nature  of  that  decree  of  Grod,  according  to  which 
He  has  resolved  to  save  those  who  believe  in  Christ  ? 

"It  is  not  unconditional,  but  is  so  fixed,  according  to  a  certain 
order,  as  to  embrace  all  the  causes  and  means  of  our  salvation." 

The  causes  and  means,  according  to  question  323,  are 
God's  mercy,  Christ's  merits,  and  persevering  faith.  So  the 
catechism  includes  faith  in  the  elective  act  as  an  integral 
part  of  it  and  this  excludes  the  idea  of  an  election  in  view 
of  faith,  because  that  doctrine  presents  faith  as  not  being 
included  in  the  decree  of  election,  but  makes  it  the  outside 
rule  by  which  God  was  guided  and  enabled  to  make  a 
"rational"  choice.  Such  doctrine  as  that  God  must  have  a 
rule  by  which  He  is  guided  and  enabled  to  make  a  rational 
choice  is  entirely  foreign  to  Dietrich's  Catechism.  This  is 
still  more  evident  from  question  325  : 

"Whence  is  it  then  that  not  all  and  every  person,  for  whom  these 
means  of  salvation  are  designed,  is  equally  chosen  to  eternal  life  '! 

36 


"It  is  because  God  has  purposed  not  to  elect  them  absol\ 
and  uncondionally,  but  with  this  appointment  and  in  this  oi^r, 
that  they  should  through  the  Gospel  believe  in  Jesus  Christ,  and  by 
true  faith  in  Him  be  saved.  But  because  the  greatest  number  do 
not  believe,  it  necessarily  follows  that  only  those  who  believe  unto 
the  end,  and,  therefore,  but  few  are  chosen." 

The  catechism  does  not  say  because  they  did  believe, 
neither  does  it  say  because  God  foresaw  that  they  would 
believe.  In  clear,  strong  words  it  says,  "that  they  should 
believe."  The  catechism  teaches  election  as  unto  salva- 
tion, so  also  unto  faith  as  the  means  of  appropriating-  sal- 
vation. And  that  this  is  biblical  language  is  demonstrated 
by  Eph.  2:10:  "We  are  his  workmanship,  created  in 
Christ  Jesus  unto-  good  works,  which  God  hath  before  or- 
dained that  we  should  walk  in  them."  In  His  election  God 
ordained  the  elect  to  walk  in  good  works,  and  hence  to  a 
walk  in  faith,  without  which  no  man  can  do  good  works. 

Let  the  reader  pick  up  the  catechism  and  examine  for 
himself  what  it  teaches.  We  Missourians  fully  endorse 
Dietrich's  Categhism.  It  is  our  catechism.  And  yet  we 
will  not  be  bound  to  Dietrich,  because  we  will  not  be  bound 
to  the  writings  of  any  man,  living  or  dead,  save  only  the 
Bible  and  the  Confessions. 

In  this  connection  we  must  also  note  that  Dietrich's 
Catechism  does  not  teach  a  conditional  election,  as  Prof. 
Yoder's  pamphlet  on  pages  46  and  47  so  emphatically  does. 
In  question  322  it  says  : 

"It  is  not  unconditional,  but  is  so  fixed,  according  to  a  certain 
order,  as  to  embrace  all  the  causes  and  means  of  our  salvation." 

The  catechism  rejects  an  unconditional  election,  yet 
does  not  say  that  election  is  conditional,  but  describes  it  as 
"so  fixed,  according  to  a  certain  order."  That  is  something 
very  different  from  teaching  a  conditional  election.  No- 
where does  the  catechism  call  faith  the  condition  of  elec- 
tion, but  it  very  distinctly  teaches  that  faith  is  the  free  gift 
of  God,  and  hence  it  does  not  regard  faith  as  a  condition 
which  man  must  fulfill  before  he  can  be  chosen  to  eter- 
nal life. 

Ques.  283 — "Can  no  one  in  his  conversion  to  God  do  anything  of 
his  own  power  ? 

"Not  at  all,  for  just  on  this  account  I  believe  that  I  cannot  by 
my  own  reason  or  strength  believe  in  Jesus  Christ  my  Lord,  or  come 
to  Him." 

37 


Ques.  286 — "Whence  then  does  conversion  to   Grod  and   faith  in 
Jesus  Christ  come  ? 

"It  is  a  gracious  gift  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  who  works  both    in    us 
by  His  mighty  power." 

After  making  those  positive  and  unqualified  statements 
the  catechism  cannot  further  on  teach  a  conditional  elec- 
tion without  contradicting  itself.  In  this  point  also  we  Mis- 
sourians  fully  endorse  Dietrich  s  Catechism. 

Yet  we  do  not  accuse  a  man  of  teaching  wrong  simply 
and  only  because  he  uses  the  expression,  faith  is  the  condi- 
tion in  election,  because  a  man  may  connect  a  right  meaning 
with  this  expression.  We  distinguish  between  a  condition 
which  God  Himself  fulfills  and  between  a  condition  which 
man  must  comply  with.  If  a  man  says,  God's  election  is 
conditioned  by  that  faith  which  God  Himself  creates,  pre- 
serves and  finishes,  that  is  clearly  not  teaching  wrong-  it  is 
only  using  language  in  which  there  is  very  little  meaning. 
If  I  say,  I  choose  these  men  to  be  soldiers  under  condition 
that  they  are  furnished  with  a  grey  coat  which  I  myself 
provide  them,  every  one  will  easily  see  that  there  is  no  real 
condition  made  there,  because  I  myself  both  make  and  ful- 
fill the  condition.  I  migt  as  well  say,  I  will  take  these 
men  and  dress  them  in  grey  and  make  them  soldiers.  But 
it  becomes  something  very  different  if  I  say,  I  will  choose 
men  to  be  my  soldiers  under  condition  that  they  are 
dressed  in  grey.  Then  the  meaning  implied  is  that  I  do 
not  furnish  them  the  grey  suit — they  must  do  it  themselves. 
That  is  stipulating  a  condition  in  the  real  sense  of  the  word, 
a  condition  with  which  the  othee  party  must  comply. 

Now,  this  is  the  whole  tendency  of  the  doctrine  of  an 
election  in  foresight  of  faith,  that  when  it  is  consistently 
carried  out  it  imperatively  demands  the  stipulating  of  a  real 
condition,  which  man  must  fulfill  by  his  own  power  or  ac- 
tion, or  to  whose  fulfillment  man  must  in  some  way  con- 
tribute his  part,  as  the  Ohio  Synod  teaches  that  conversion 
is  dependent  not  alone  on  the  grace  of  God,  but  also  on  the 
conduct  of  man.  rl  his  makes  man  in  part  the  author  of  his 
own  conversion,  and  this  doctrine  we  reject,  because  by  it 
the  doctrines  of  man's  total  depravity  and  of  salvation  by 
the  grace  of  God  alone  are  overthrown. 

Dietrich's  Catechism  holds  the  middle  ground  between 
the  unconditional  election  of  the  Calvinists  and  the  condi- 
tional election  of  the  Rationalists  and  Synergists,  and  this 

38 


is  the  ground  which  Missouri  occupies.  We  teach  neith- 
er a  conditional  nor  an  unconditional  election,  and  say 
with  the  Book  of  Concord  : 

"The  eternal  election  God  not  only  foresees  and  foreknows  the 
salvation  of  the  elect,  but  through  His  gracious  will  and  good  pleas- 
ure in  Christ  Jesus,  is  also  a  cause  which  procures,  works,  facilitates 
and  promotes  our  salvation  and  whatever  pertains  to  it;  and  upon 
this  our  salvation  is  so  firmly  grounded  that  the  gates  of  hell  shall 
not  prevail  against  it."— (2d  N.  Market  Ed.,  p.  712.) 

It  is  true  that  at  the  Free  English  conference  held  in  Grav- 
elton,  Mo.,  Aug.  17-20,  1872,  in  which  Drs.  Walther,  F.  A. 
Schmidt  and  P.  C.  Henkel  took  part,  the  subject  of  election 
was  not  discussed.  It  is  hardly  probably  that  any  one  ever 
seriously  adduced  the  presence  of  Dr.  Henkel  at  that  confer- 
ence as  a  proof  of  his  agreement  with  Dr.  Walther  in  the 
doctrine  of  Predestination.  Still  it  might  not  be  amiss  to  say 
here  that  in  the  minutes  of  that  conference  that  express  the 
belief  of  Dr.  Henkel,  there  are  contained  sentences,  to  which 
another  member  of  the  same  conference,  who  has  since  that 
time  fallen  into  the  error  of  synergism,  cannot  uprightly  sub- 
scribe. Thus  we  read  on  page  7  of  these  minutes:  "Man  is 
only  the  object  that  is  to  be  converted,  and  he  dees  not  him- 
self co-operate  towards  it." 

"We  have  here  to  do  with  a  great  mystery,  because  it  seems 
as  though  it  were  the  fault  of  God,  if  a  person  is  not  con- 
verted. .  It  seems  as  though  God  passed  by  some  men.  But 
we  hold  fast  that  a  converted  pei'son  is  such  only  by  the  grace 
of  God ;  whilst  an  unconverted  person  is  such  by  his  own 
fault,  because  he  wantonly  resists  the  grace  of  God.  *  *  *  It 
is  the  doctrine  of  total  depravity  and  corruption  after  the  fall 
which  we  here  assert,  not  only  in  opposition  to  such  gross  er- 
rors as  those  by  which  original  sin  and  our  natural  depravity 
are  altogether  denied,  but  also  over  against  more  refined 
aberrations  from  the  ttqith,  as  when  some  degree  of  spiritual 
faculties,  or  some  spark  of  the  life  of  God,  is  ascribed  to 
natural  man." 

On  page  8:     "The  'natural  man'  certainly  continues  to  be 

such  a  natural  man^  until  he  is  eonverted  and  changed  by  the 

grace  of  God;  and  hence,  so  long  as  he   remains  a  natural  or 

.  unconverted  man,  the  things  of  the  spirit  of   God  must  also 

remain  foolishness  unto  him  and  cannot  be  received  by  him." 

The  italics  are  ours.     These  few  sentences  serve. to  set  forth 

39 


the  scriptural,  confessionals  views  held  by  Dr.  Henkel  on  the 
subject  of  conversion.  After  all,  it  is  the  doctrine  of  conver- 
sion that  forms  the  main  point  of  controversy  between  Mis- 
souri and  those  who  combat  her.  Contrast  with  the  expres- 
sions above  quoted,  the  false,  synergistic  expressions  of  those 
who  teach  an  election  "in  view  cf  faith."     Thus: 

"Men  themselves  made  the  difference,  some  yield  to  the 
converting  influence  of  the  Holy  Grhost,  permitting  them- 
selves to  be  converted,  while  others  wilfully  resist."  (Stand- 
ard 39,  338.) 

"God  then  does  not  take  away  that  kind  of  resistance,  but 
man  must  stop  it  or  he  cannot  be  converted."  (Standard 
40,  242.) 

"This  is  the  indifferent  state  into  which  converting  grace 
places  mei  and  in  which  they  can  either  resist  or  not  resist" 
(Magazine  3,  7.) 

"Ohio  believes,  that  that  something  else  upon  which  also  it 
still  depends  whether  man  is  converted  and  saved,  is  not  again 
grace,  a  new  grace  restricted  to  few,  as  if  there  were  still 
something  lacking  in  the  universal  grace,  but  that  it  is  to  be 
sought  elsewhere"  (namely  in  the  conduct  of  man.) — (Kirch- 
enzeitung,  April  18,  1891.) 

Thus  it  can  be  seen  that  Dr.  Henkel  was  far  from  agreeing 
with  the  synergistic  errors  of  the  to-day  in-view-of-faith 
teachers.  But  to  come  to  his  position  'on  Election.'  He  did, 
for  all  we  know,  write  the  letter  to  Dr.  Schmidt  quoted  on 
page  39  of  "The  Situation."  Now,  mark  you,  Rev.  Yoder 
plainly  intimates  that  Father  Henkel  would  not  have  asked 
Dr.  Schmidt  to  come  to  Conover,  if  they  had  not  been  agreed. 
He  portrays  Dr.  Henkel  as  a  consistent  Lutheran  teacher, 
who  would  have  nothing  to  do  with  a  man  who  had  fallen 
into  most  grievous  error  on  the  important  doctrine  ;of  Elec- 
tion.' This  has  always  been  our  impression  of  this  great 
theologian.  It  cannot  be  denied  tnat  at  the  time,  he  wrote 
the  letter  quoted,  he  thought  the  Synod  of  Missouri,  and  with 
it  the  Augsburg  Confession  of  Missouri  and  his  successor  in 
Gravelton,  Rev.  L.  M.  Wagner,  had  fallen  into  error  'on  Elec- 
tion.' But  was  this  his  fixed  and  settled  opinion  until  the 
time  of  his  death  in  1889?  Did  he  never  have  a  chance  to 
learn  otherwise?  In  the  funeral  oration  on  Dr.  Henkel, 
preached  by  Rev.  L.  M.  Wagner  and  published  in  "Our 
Church  Paper,"  Oct.  30,  1889,  the  following  statements  were, 

40 


as  far  as  we  know,  allowed  to  pass  unchallenged.  "I  had 
promised  to  be  with  him  next  spring  to  work  with  him  for  a 
season.  *  *  *  The  Missouri  Synod  has  lost  a  true  friend 
in  him.  He  was  one  with  us  in  faith  and  would  fain  have 
been  one  with  us  in  synodieal  connection." 

That  Pastor  Wagner  could  make  these  statements  without 
fear  of  successful  contradiction,  he  well  knew,  as  he  was  pre- 
pared to  substantiate  his  assertions.  This  is  evident  from  a 
letter  dated  Oct.  14th,  1893,  and  written  to  a  relative  of  Dr. 
Henkel's,  in  Conover.  The  portion  of  the  letter  in  question 
reads  as  follows: 

"As  to  Father  Henkel's  position,  I  do  not  see  how  that  can 
be  called  into  question.  The  letters  I  received  from  him  in 
1888  and  1889,  I  have  gotten  misplaced  in  my  removal  to 
Barton  county  and  back;  but  in  them  he  stated  frequently 
that  he  wanted  me  to  give  my  consent  to  go  to  Conover  and 
become  a  teacher  in  the  .College,  and  that  he  wanted  to  bring 
that  school  and  the  whole  Tennessee  Synod,  or  as  much  of  it 
as  would  stand  by  pure  Lutheran  doctrine  and  practice,  into 
connection  with  our  Missouri  Synod.  He  also  spoke  of  there 
being  some  men  in  connection  with  Concordia  College  who 
were  not  laboring  according  to  the  design  on  which  the 
school  had  been  founded;  and  he  hoped  to  get  them  discon- 
nected with  it.  And  it  was  to  take  one  of  their  places  that 
he  wanted  me,  as  soon  as  the  vacancy  should  occur.  We  did 
not  say  anything  in  that  correspondence  on  any  doctrine,  for 
he  knew  our  doctrine  then,  I  suppose,  on  all  points,  and  there 
was  no  more  need  of  speaking  on  the  doctrine  of  Election 
than  of  the  Lord's  Supper  or  Baptism.  But  a  long  time  ago, 
about  the  time  Ohio  sprang  that  new  doctrine  of  Election, 
Rev.  Henkel  did  write  to  me  and  say  that  he  then  knew  noth- 
ing of  our  position  on  Election  only  what  he  saw  in  the 
"Lutheran  Standard,"  and  he  stated  that  if  what  the  "Stand- 
ard" imputed  to  us  was  really  our  position,  then  he  could  not 
agree  with  us.  And  who  could  blame  him?  Who  could 
agree  with  us,  if  what  Ohio  said  was  true?  But  he  found  out 
that  Ohio  was  misrepresenting  us.  And  these  are  the  facts 
in  the  case  of  our  correspondence,  and  I  will  swear  to  them 
before  a  magistrate,  if  it  is  necessary." 

In  view  of  these  facts — facts  well  known  to  every  one  that 
was  in  the  confidence  of  Dr.  Henkel — there  can  be  no  doubt 
that  in  the  latter  years  of  his  life,  Dr.  Henkel  learned  to  know 

41 


Missouri's  doctrine  on  Election,  and  convinced  of  the  truth 
of  the  same,  was  endeavoring  to  make  arrangements  to  work 
hand-in-hand  with  her. 

Prof.  Yoder  quotes  from  "Sermon  Notes  on  Election"  (in 
possession  of  Mr.  J.  T.  Miller,  Conover,  N.  C):  "Faith  only 
the  condition  in  Election,"  while  in  a  copy  of  these  notes,  of 
which  Mr.  Miller  certifies  that  it  is  "a  correct  copy,"  we  read: 
"Faith  only  a  condition  of  Election"— a  discrepancy  wlrch 
the  reader  may  explain  for  himself.  With  reference  to  these 
notes,  Mr.  Miller  writes:  "A  copy  of  notes  taken  by  me  from 
a  sermon  preached  by  Rev.  P.  C.  Henkel,  D.  D.,  on  the  sub- 
ject of  Election."  They  are  then  not  Dr.  Henkel's  notes,  but 
notes  jotted  down  by  a  hearer  during  the  delivery  of  the  ser- 
mon. On  the  other  hand,  Dr.  Henkel's  notes,  written  by 
himself,  lie  before  us,  and  there  we  read  the  following  state- 
ments that  are  decisive: 

"There  was  nothing  foreseen  in  man  that  could  give  rise  to 
Election." 

"Faith  is  not  the  ground  or  cause  of  Election.  It  is  the  opera- 
tion of  God,  Col.  2:12;  2  Pet.  1:3  4.  "It  is  the  gift  of  Cod,"  Eph.  2:8. 
In  imparting  instruction  on  the  subject  of  Election,  Dr. 
Henkel,read  the  XI.  Art.  F.  C.  with  Rev.  J.  M.  Smith,  then 
a  student  of  theology,  and  said  that  that  was  better  than  he 
oouldgive  in  way  of  explanation:  (It  is  a  well-known  fact 
that  the  B.  C.  does  not  contain  the  expression  "in  view  of 
faith.")  Rev.  Smith  denies  ever  having-  said  that  Dr.  Hen- 
kel taught  him  "in  view  of  faith."  What  he  did  say  was 
that  David  Henkel  had  used  that  expression;  and  that  as  P. 
C.  Henkel  often  used  his  father's  exegesis,  it  was  likely  that 
he  used  the  same.  "I  have  no  recollection  of  ever  hearing 
P.  C.  Henkel  use  that  phrase  'in  view  of  faith,'  "  Rev.Smith 
now  asserts. 

Of  David  Henkel,  it  can  be  seen  that  he  made  use  ,of 
the  "in  view  of  faith."  But  that  he  does  not  altogether 
agree  with  the  modern  synergistic  defenders  of  this  expres- 
sion, can  be  as  readily  seen.  Instead  of  using  Phil.  2:12,  as 
do  the  synergists,  to  show  that  man  must  do  something 
towards  his  salvation,  he  says  in  refuting  this  in  answer  to 
Joseph  Moore,  pp  155-156: 

"The  Philippians,  whom  the  apostles  exhorted  to  work  out 
their  own  salvation,  were  already  regenerated.  *  *  *  One 
thing  is  to  work,  in  order  to  be  justi  led  before  Cod;  but  another  is 

42 


to  work,  in  order  to  appear,  and  be  blameless,  and  harmless  without 
rebuke  in  the  midst  of  a  crooked  and  perverse  nation.  Not  the  for- 
mer, but  the  latter,  is  the  reason  why  the  apostle  exhorted  the  Phil- 
ippians  to  work  out  their  own  salvation." 

What  Rev.  David  Henkel  meant  when  calling-  faith  the 
"condition"  of  election,  we  may  in  part  gather  from  his 
calling  "repentance  a  condition  of  justification,"  and  quot- 
ing Acts  2:88:  "Repent  and  be  baptized."  (See  Fragment 
VI.  p  164.)  From  this  it  would  seem  that  Henkel  regarded 
repentance  a  condition  just  as  we  might  call  baptism  a  con- 
dition, namely,  as  the  way  and  the  means  unto  justification, 
and  not  such  a  condition  which  man  must  fulfill  or  to  whose 
fulfilment  man  must  do  his  part.  We  do  not  believe  that  he 
would  have  consented  to  reduce  the  expression  "in  view  of 
faith"  to  "in  view  of  nan's  conduct  towards  the  Gospel." 
Gerhardt,  Quenstedt,  Hunnius  and  others  did  use  the  ex- 
pression in  view  of  faith,  but  at  the  same  time  they  con- 
demned it  as  a  heresy  to  teach  that  man  could  contribute 
something  towards  conversion.  Would  David  Henkel  have 
sanctioned  the  doctrine  that  conversion  is  in  part  depend- 
ent on  man's  conduct?  Equity  requires  us  to  look  well  in- 
to what  company  we  place  those  who  are  fallen  asleep  and 
no  more  able  to  speak  for  themselves. 

In  concluding  this  section  relating  to  Prof.  Yoder's 
vain  attempt  to  define  the  position  of  the  Tennessee  Synod 
as  he  would  like  to  have  it,  we  would  call  attention  to  a 
grave  omission  on  his  part.  His  readers  in  that  Synod  are, 
no  doubt,  pained  to  see  that  he  makes  no  reference  to  what 
might  be  termed  the  public  writings  of  the  Synod.  "Our 
Church  Paper"  is  never  mentioned.  Why?  It  is  the  pa- 
per that  in  many  quarters  is  looked  upon  as  the  organ  of 
the  Tennessee  Synod;  it  has  been  recommended  time  and 
time  again  by  her  pastors  and  finds  its  way  into  the  homes 
of  her  members.  Why  is  no  reference  made  to  this  influen- 
tial paper  that,  during  the  predestination  controversy,  pub- 
lished many  articles  pertaining  to  the  subject?  Ah,  yes! 
Why  indeed?  Let  Dr.  F.  H  Schmidt  answer.  He  writes 
to  a  Tennessee  pastor  under  date  of  Aug.  17,  1890  : 

"1  was  not  a  little  surprised  to  find  that  you  are  not   all  on  the 

Missouri  side  of  the  question;  as  I  have  been  reading  the   "O.  P.  P." 

all  along  and  found  nothing  but  flings  there  at    the    "In    View  of 

Faith." 

43 


As  far  as  Prof.  Schmidt  could  judge  from  the  public 
writing's  of  the  Tenn.  Synod,  he  thought  that  you  "were  all 
on  the  Mo.  side  of  the  question."  Too  bad  isn't  it,  gentle- 
men, that  he  should  misjudge  you  in  that  way? 

But  our  "Church  Paper"  should  now  be  allowed  to  talk 
thus  : 

Moreover,  is  there  anything  like  strict  harmony  in  the  teachings 
of  the  following  questions  and  answers  which  we  take  from  a  little 
work  entitled ''The  Doctrine  of  Predestination,"  Columbus,  Ohio, 
and  the  subjoined  declarations  which  we  take  from  the  Book  of  Con- 
cord ?    The  former  read  thus  : 

55.  "What  then  directed  God  in  His  selection  of  the  persons  to  be 
ordained  unto  salvation  ? 

"Ans. — Faith  in  Christ  Jesus." — Page  8. 

93.     "How  now  would  you  briefly  define  God's  gracious  election  ? 

"Ans. — To  be  clear  and  exact,  thus  :  Election  is  that  eternal  and 
unchangeable  decree  of  God's  grace  in  which  God,  for  the  sake  of 
Christ  alone,  has  ordained  unto  sonship  and  salvation  all  those  per- 
sons of  whom  He  has  foreseen  that  they  will  finally  believe  in  Christ 
Jesus." — Page  9. 

Thus  read  the  latter  : 

"Before  the  world  began,  before  we  existed,  indeed  before  the 
foundation  of  the  world,  when  certainly  we  could  have  done  nothing 
good,  we  were  elected  to  salvation  by  grace  in  Christ  according  to  the 
purpose  of  God. — Rom.  9, 11;  2  Tim.  1,  9.  And  by  this  doctrine,  all 
false  opinions  and  errors  concerning  the  powers  of  our  natural  will, 
are  overthrown;  since,  before  the  world  began,  God  decreed  and  or- 
dained in  His  counsel,  that  He  Himself  by  the  power  of  His  Holy  Spir- 
it, through  the  Word,  would  effect  and  work  in  us  all  that  belongs  to 
our  con  version." — Page  718. 

"The  following  doctrine  is,  therefore,  false  and  erroneous — name- 
ly, that  not  the  mercy  of  God  alone,  and  the  most  holy  merit  of  Christ 
are  the  cause,  but  that  in  us  also  there  is  a  cause  of  the  election  of  God, 
on  account  of  which  God  has  elected  us  to  everlasting  life.  For,  not 
only  before  we  had  done  any  good,  but  also  before  we  were  born,  yea, 
before  the  foundation  of  the  world,  He  elected  us  in  Christ." — Page 
726. 

Do  not  these  declarations  come  in  conflict  with  the  teachings  of 
the  questions  and  answers  just  quoted  ? 

Still  the  Standard  seems  to  think  a  "practical  seminary"  is  necessa- 
ry down  South,  to  teach  and  inculcate  these  innovations,  and  im- 
provements (?)  on  Christ,  the  Apostles,  and  Confessions  of  the  Church. 
—[Our  Church  Paper,  Jan.  3,  1887. 

A.s  to  the  charge  against  Rev.  Smith,  that  he  tells  an 
untruth  when  he  says  that  he  has  not  changed  his  views, 
he  makes  the  succinct  statement : 

44 


'  'At  one  of  the  pastoral  meetings  held  during  1 890,  it  was  charged 
upon  the  leader  in  debate  that  he  was  Calvinistic  and  with  Missouri, 
and  what  more  confirmed  this  view  was,  that  a  pastor  read  three  ques- 
tions from  the  Westminster  Catechism  to  this  effect  :  'Does  God  de- 
sire the  salvation  of  all  ?'  'Did  Christ  die  for  all  ?'  'Does  God  not 
pass  by  the  greater  number  of  mankind  and  leave  them  to  be 
damned  ?'  and  the  leader  would  not  answer.  I  then  firmly  thought 
he  was  a  Calvinist,  and  at  our  next  meeting  an  effort  was  made  on  my 
part  to  rebut  his  position  by  any  reference  to  the  Bible  and  Luther- 
an writers  that  could  be  at  hand.  Having  previously  seen  the  min- 
utes of  Concordia  English  District  of  the  Ohio  Synod  of  1882,  I  pro- 
cured them  and  marked  what  the  Lutheran  Church  (according  to 
Ohio)  had  to  say,  viz  :  God  has  redeemed  all,  preaches  the  Word  to 
all  and  selects  those  who  believe,  and  since  the  paragraph  begins  : 
'The  Lutheran  Church,'  *  *  I,  of  course,  jotted  down,  'Luth.' 
The  'Mo.'  mark  was  for  my  eye  to  read  what  she  taught  (according  to 
Ohio)  and  not  to  condemn  her.  In  a  word,  I  did  not  know  then 
what  Mo .  taught,  except  what  Ohio  had  to  say  in  the  Standard  and 
minutes — namely,  that  God  selects  some  and,  Calvin-fashion,  passes 
by  the  rest  and  does  not  desire  the  salvation  of  all,  but  only  a  select 
few.  Therefore,  a  false  impression  as  to  Mo.  was  made.  Later, 
when  I  had  more  light  from  Mo.,  1  thought  differently  of  Mo.  As  to 
Mo.  I  have  changed  since  1  see  she  is  not  Calvinistic.  As  to  the  phrase, 
'in  view  of  faith,'  I  see  that  though  it  can  be  understood  in  the  right 
sense,  it  is  liable  to  mislead  and  is  not  in  the  Confessions,  and  I,  with 
hundreds  of  ministers  of  the  Lutheran  Church,  have  dropped  the 
expression  and  use  other  ways  of  speaking  of  this  doctrine.  As  to 
the  doctrine,  I  have  not  changed  my  views,  but  have  dropped  the 
unconfessional  way  of  explaining  it." 

Prof.  Toder's  indignation  at  the  thought  that  we  "Mis- 
sourians"  should  become  offended  when  he  and  his  col- 
leagues sign  a  paper  giving  vent  to  their  pent  up  feelings, 
is  entirely  misplaced.  Aside  from  the  fact  that  it  did  seem 
"powerfully  strange"  to  many  honest  hearts  in  the  audi- 
ence to  see  extremes  meeting — Tennessee  and  Ohio!  We 
Missourians  were  not  offended.  We  were  grieved.  ''Why?" 
Because  it  "blasted  the  last  hope  of  long  looked  and 
prayed-for  peace  and  unity  with  our  opponents."  We  re- 
mind the  professor  that  at  the  very  start  of  the  Conference, 
before  there  had  been  any  discussion  upon  the  subject  proper, 
one  of  the  signers  of  this  paper  in  question  tried  ho  intro- 
duce a  thesis  to  supersede  the  regularly  appointed   theses, 

45 


having  this  import,  "that  we,  the  Missourians,  have  broken 
historic  connection  with  the  Lutheran  Church,  etc.'  Was 
such  a  course  calculated  to  reassure  us  that  the  end  and 
aim  of  our  Free  Conferences  was  to  be  attained:  namely,  to 
compose  differences  and  get  together,  or  was  it  designed  to 
"shake  Mo?"  When  the  discussions,  at  the  will  of  the  ma- 
jority, had  broken  loose  from  all  restraint  of  theses;  when 
the  subject  had  not  been  half  discussed;  when  the  "shaking- 
scene"  had  not  been  a  stupendous  success,  was  it  in  order 
to  cut  the  Gordian  knot  with  such  a  paper?  Without  fair, 
honest,  prayerful  discussion  the  die  has  been  cast  and  the 
opinion  promulgated.  "It  was  our  duty,"  says  Pastor  Yo- 
der.  What!  are  Lutheran  Christians  blindly  lead  thus  by 
their  pastors  tha^i  a  mere  expression  of  opinion  on  the  part 
of  their  pastors  will  sway  them  even  as  a  reed?  We  do  not 
believe  it.  Do  honest  Lutheran  hearts  long  to  hear  the 
pure  doctrine  of  their  church  discussed  and  defended?  We 
think  they  do.  Do  they  wish  to  cause  schism  and  division 
by  cutting  off  the  only  chance  of  ever  coming  near  togeth- 
er? We  hope  not.  And  yet  Prof.  Yoder  can  write:  <kWe 
signed  and  read  this  paper  because  we  claim  that  it  was  not 
only  our  right  and  privilege,  but  also  our  duty  to  do  so  un- 
der the  circumstances!!  "  Yes  it  is  indeed  a  bad  spirit  that 
would  suppress  free  discussion  and  calumniate  those  who 
defend  their  views. 

As  for  "being  attacked  by  very  harsh  and  severe  lan- 
guage, and  by  personal  assault,"  we  do  not  understand 
what  the  gentleman  means,  but  we  do  solemnly  protest 
against  the  connection  in  which  the  statement  is  made,  as 
if  one  of  "those  Missourians"  had  been  guilty  of  such  a 
thing! 


In  conclusion,  the  authors  of  this  pamphlet  ask  to  be 
granted  a  liberty  which  they  hope  will  not  be  taken  amiss. 
The  cry  in  our  part  of  the  country  is:  Adhere  to  the  old 
Tennessee  Synod!  Good!!  The  old  faith  which  the  old 
Tennessee  Synod  in  the  days  of  David  Henkel,  for  instance, 
maintained  over  against  the  lax  Lutheran  bodies  of  the 
Southeast,  is  worthy  of  being  propagated.    However,   the 

46 


new  Tennessee  Synod  has  done  the  very  thing-  from  which 
David  Henkel  was  instrumental  in  saving  the  old  Tennessee 
Synod:  it  has  gone  over  into  a  general  body,  with  which, 
according  to  its  own  profession,  it  does  not  agree.  May 
tho  Lord  speed  the  da  y  when  the  Tennessee  Synod  is  again 
the  %<old"  Synod  which  it  used  to  be! 


